Will the waterways charity work?

[canaldrifter]

We all know that government grant-in-aid plus income from the BW property portfolio will be woefully inadequate to maintain our waterways in their present condition, let alone deal with the increasing backlog of work required.

 

Yet Richard Benyon is chipper in his blog (4th April) about the coming waterways charity status:

 

"Last week I had the happy task to launch the next phase of the process of transferring our canals from state ownership to a charity. If all goes well, we will complete the morphing of British Waterways into a charity the size of the British Red Cross or Save the Children, by next summer. I am enjoying this process because I know it is the right thing to do and because it is a popular policy with nearly all the passionate people who love and care for our waterways."

 

benyon blog

 

But is it?

 

The Red Cross and Save Our Children are very successful because of their humanitarian work. Size was not the platform from which they raised money. Both the Red Cross and Save Our Children grew on their ability to attract donations. The Waterways Charity could be a big white elephant to start with.

 

Although many folks are making positive noises about charity status opening up new ways of funding, I have to ask where will this dosh come from? If the money is there for the taking, why haven't BW already done so?

 

The only substantial increased funding I can predict is from the budgets of boaters themselves. Everyone else who uses the waterways, apart from anglers perhaps, expects to be able to use them freely, like the local park. The waterways should largely be paid for out of a minimal percentage of everyone's taxes. It would seem to me that the whole concept of a waterways charity is a government financial cop-out.

 

I have to agree with the IWA (and I don't often) when they state, "The association believes that the NWC is going to be launched with an extremely fragile funding package gravely jeopardising its prospects and also speculates that the funding might be a stumbling block for future trustees to accept, thus preventing the launch of the charity."

 

IWA press statement

 

So, is the Waterways Charity going to work? Putting it in the care of "the passionate people who love and care for our waterways," is laudable, but is it also putting the funding burden upon our backs too? Can we afford it?

 

Tone

Edited April 12, 2011 by canaldrifter

[Tiny]

I wait to see who these caring passionate people are...

[NB Lola]

I am both caring and passionate towards the waterways and I disagree with Benyon

[norman.r]

I hate to say it, but it is not going to work. The question is "what next"

Norman

[muddywaters]

The only way this new status can work is if it is started with firm roots.

From all I have read so far this is not going to happen.

So even though I support the idea in principle I can't support it in it's present form and no I don't believe it can or will work

[Caprifool]

If "the passionate people who love and care for our waterways" are the same ones complaining about the cost of a BW licence and the price of coal. I really don't see it happening. But could it be done by british taxes, BW licences AND a charity all pitching in?

 

Personaly, I think the canals must be a huge part of the infrastructure and should be financed as such. It must be bringing in enormous amounts to the UK in busines, VAT, jobs and what not from tourism alone. I think it mainly should be tax financed. But what do I know.... Not much :-)

[cotswoldsman]

If "the passionate people who love and care for our waterways" are the same ones complaining about the cost of a BW licence and the price of coal. I really don't see it happening. But could it be done by british taxes, BW licences AND a charity all pitching in?

 

Personaly, I think the canals must be a huge part of the infrastructure and should be financed as such. It must be bringing in enormous amounts to the UK in busines, VAT, jobs and what not from tourism alone. I think it mainly should be tax financed. But what do I know.... Not much :-)

 

Seems neither of know that much then as I agree with you certainly about the tax payer paying but we know that does not win votes so we are where we are and somehow they have to make it work.

[pete.i]

Hi all.

 

It's the best we have at the moment. As Norman said, "The question is what next?" if it doesn't work.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[rgreg]

I have tried to keep an open mind on the charitable status but have always worried about funding it. As has been said by Tone, the only people I can see who will be prepared to pay for the waterways are boaters and some anglers (albeit grudgingly in many cases). The many other users who currently enjoy them for "free" will expect to continue to do so.

[pete.i]

Well I sincerely hope that I am wrong but if the charity thing doesn't work then, as far as I can see, we will not have a waterways system to enjoy. It will get filled in and the developers will build on it. The only saving grace at the moment is that some developers are at least seeing that people want to buy houses/flats near a waterway.

 

Pete