|
Maybe the italian's have realised that motorists are voters. In Milan there are huge spotlessly clean and secure multi story carparks at the end of the underground lines near the ring road (6 lane motorway). Cost 1 euro to park all day and 1 euro each way to Milan centre.
|
> ...those of us who have to commute long distances...
There's a point in itself. Plenty of us have jobs a long way from where we live - I'm actually contemplating an offer of one myself - and we all regard this as essential travelling. But is it? Quite apart from what it does to family life, with children imprisoned (provocative word - see who bites!) in schools, nurseries and holiday clubs for ten hours a day, we're burning vast amounts of fuel on moving one person from A to distant B and back again, five times a week.
This is where we need the joined-up thinking I've ranted about elsewhere - people do all this travelling because there's a bigger salary somewhere else, which they want because they have a £2,000-a-month mortgage, which they have because one full-time job won't buy a family house in most parts of England any more, and they can't or won't move because that would take the spouse away from the job that leaves time to pick up the children from the nursery where they're kept indoors all day with only a few dim 18-year-olds for company.
I could go on, and I've used some deliberately provocative language here. I know it's political because life is political, but it's not party-political: our way of life here has come to rest on a number of assumptions like this that could be challenged but very seldom are. One of them is that whatever we do mustn't damage The Economy, but why is that? If it was wrong - and people seem to think it was - to stop the investigation into possible BAe corruption because it might cause economic damage, is it wrong to recognize that we might have to curb our standard of living a little in order to maintain the environment in a habitable state?
This isn't specific to road pricing, incidentally, which seems to me to be a prohibitively complicated way of inducing people to change their behaviour. Consider one more possibility, though: that the government has set up the road pricing idea, and all the noise concerning the Downing Street petition, as a dummy policy to be knocked down by public opinion, so that whatever takes its place will seem altogether more acceptable.
|
The problem is that these days there's no such thing as a job-for-life. People have to change jobs much more frequently. I moved from Kent to a northern city about 10 years ago, as I work in a field that's concentrated in a few small areas, and that city had quite a few businesses that used my skills.
For seven years I could walk to work - only took 20 minutes. Then the place closed down, and in the time that I'd been up there most of the other businesses in that field of work had closed down too. The nearest job I could get that paid a decent wage was a 35 mile commute away.
I support my wife who is a housewife, and two school-age children. Moving is not an option, I simply couldn't afford the inflated house prices.
Driving is pretty much the only option. Luckily I car-share with two other colleagues so I only drive once every three weeks. Works out much cheaper and quicker than getting public transport ( i.e. a bus, a train, then another bus = over two hours).
If the government implements road-pricing it could possibly make it no longer economic for me to commute at all.
The biggest factor that would help congestion is mandatory school buses. The schools near me are on half-term this week, and the roads are very, very quiet.
|
"One of them is that whatever we do mustn't damage The Economy, but why is that? If it was wrong - and people seem to think it was - to stop the investigation into possible BAe corruption because it might cause economic damage, is it wrong to recognize that we might have to curb our standard of living a little in order to maintain the environment in a habitable state?"
Are you serious about not damaging the economy? Any hefty damage to the economy wil have an impact on everyone in the country, with the possible exception of the very rich and politicians.
I'm sure that the Government doesn't really want us to stop driving, it merely wishes to extract more money in order to develop more hair brained schemes and fill the pockets of its political allies. In today's Computer Weekly, Andrew Rollerson of Fujitsu has stated that Labour's multi-billion pound project to create the NHS's national computer system "isn't working and isn't going to work." This project is costing £20 billion of taxpayers' money.
Can you imagine what would happen if 90% of motorists took their cars off the road as it seems that Transport 2000 and other tree huggers would like to see? The economy would collapse almost overnight. The roads would be empty for the remaining road users, but where would the Government raise the shortfall in revenue? Where would the money come from to support education, the war in Iraq, the NHS, and everything else? Not to mention the unemployment that would be created.
|
"...but where would the Government raise the shortfall in revenue?"
I don't think we need to worry that any Government will be stymied when it comes to revenue raising.
Less cars might = less tax take but will simply = more tax on other things, or new things, or things that used to be taxed and aren't any more.
Like dogs or windows, or more realistically, new and increased property taxes.
|
"new and increased property taxes"
Already started with the Chancellors rehashed idea of development land tax which has failed four times previously and is doomed to failure again. Like Home Condition Reports and the current congestion charging petition consultees are screaming until they are blue in the face that it won't work. The costs to administer will potentially be more than revenue raised and he needs a raft of highly paid experts to undertake the collection work, not just a civil servant on grade 1, but good old Gordon carries on regardless oblivious to the issues being raised.
|
I expect it'll just be another 10% on stamp duty then. Shove a couple of percent onto VAT whilst there. Easy stuff.
|
|
|
The costs to administer will potentially be more than revenue raised and he needs a raft of highly paid experts to undertake the collection work, not just a civil servant on grade 1, but good old Gordon carries on regardless oblivious to the issues being raised.
I'm reading a book recommended by HJ about consultancies and their central role in gov. It does not make pleasant reading.
|
|
|
|
I don't think we need to worry that any Government will be stymied when it comes to revenue raising. Less cars might = less tax take but will simply = more tax on other things, or new things, or things that used to be taxed and aren't any more. Like dogs or windows, or more realistically, new and increased property taxes.
Do the maths. 90% less revenue from motorists is a huge amount. Plus a huge loss from the congestion charge. Motorists, being addicted to their cars, have grudgingly paid up. However, if it came to the push and 90% gave up motoring, this would have far reaching effects. Car manufacturers; dealers; petrol stations; all of those small manufacturing companies supplying the car trade; tyre makers and sellers; all of these would be hit and workers would have to be laid off. Think of the consequent loss of National Insurance contributions and Income Tax. No way could the Government make up this shortfall without a huge increase in personal taxation which would have a consequent loss in disposable income. This would have a drastic effect on the economy.
Fortunately, for the Government, this won't happen, because motorists will just pay up and accept it. The Governmnet really doesn't want this to happen either, so it will squeeze the motorist as much as it can and spin its way out.
|
|
|
|
|
