|
There are lots of people who voted for him ,if you thing hes bad wait till the next Scottish self centered dreamer takes over.
|
FWIW, and at the risk of attracting a flaming of gargantuan proportions, I agree with road pricing as a principle. Run efficiently, it would do what's required, which is to make market forces work to clear up a problem currently driven by the fact that there is no penalty whatsoever for using the busiest road int he UK at its busiest time.
The reason I object is in the implementation. If the aim were to make this entirely tax-neutral - reduce other motoring taxes to balance exactly the revenues received from road pricing - then I would accept it. However, we know that that isn't the way it'll work. Because road pricing won't be an immediately obvious tax, increases will be easy to slip into the system. Who's going to notice that two miles of their journey to work is now costing 75p per mile rather than 65p? In this way, it'll become just another way of taking money with no accountability.
The other elephant in the room, of course, is privacy. No matter what anyone says or promises, the data collected will end up being used for nefarious purposes. After all, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, have you?
V
|
">which is to make market forces <"
Market forces? Do you mean a free market? Where I can choose which provider of roads I wish to use? Roads that I already pay through the nose for. I want what I've already paid for, a first class road network with no pinch points. Dartford crossing. M11 at the North Circular. I could go on....
|
|
|
|
I got mine this morning and have re-read it three or four times in a state of utter disbelief.
If ever I had any doubts that this man occupies a very different world to the average person on the street, they have been confirmed, and then some.
Yet again, he completely ignores the main point. He seems to think people clog up main routes in rush hour to be narrow minded and awkward, and charging them will make them see the error of their ways. Isn't it more that they clog up main routes in rush hour because they have to get to work, and public transport already runs at capacity? That's if public transport is even locally accessible which it often isn't. How does he propose people keep Gordon's precious economy functioning if they are forced to pay through the nose for the "pleasure" of getting to work? Does he think they'll wake up and think "I won't go in today."? What planet is he on?
He can harp on about investment in the railways all he likes, but the fact is that one major train company in the South has come up with the idea of removing toilets to increase standing capacity. If that's the level of thinking and reform strategy he's getting for the £4 billion investment he keeps crowing about, then his immediate resignation, and that of his lazy, inefficient and complacent government should be the very least we can expect.
Hateful little man!
|
|
I'v etried to pose a question (via link at the bottom of the email) to Steven Ladyman, either the whole of the UK is doing the same or they have disabled it as the site is coming back with errors as soon as I try, anyone else having this problem!?
|
Congestion will increase by 25% in the next 8 years... And the trend is going to continue...
Who's going to be driving all these cars?
|
Who's going to be driving all these cars?>>
We'll import more drivers from abroad.
|
|
|
|
Cars which are used for 3% of their time are obviously an ineffecient use of resources. There are many alternatives, which although not everyone can use them at all times, would be effective in reducing congestion. Personally i favour some form of rationing rather than crude charging.
|
|
|
". We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. "
Lets see: £14Billion a year on average is going to be spent..as above .. over the next 10 years...That is more than twice the £6.5Billion claimed for this year...
Where?
Is this spin?
I frankly find this man difficult to take seriously or believe anymore..
It's clearly not going to be spent on the roads... and not on the railways...or is this public subsidies annd not new money? I suspect subsidies....
Cow execrement used to baffle brains but frankly the man is too glib .
madf
|
|
Hard to tell whether he's severely deluded or frantically spinning. Either way, large chunks of his email are laughable...
|
Reducing the number of cars on the road is, IMO, a good thing. I cannot see any downside.
However, there are two ways of doing it;
1) Making the alternative more attractive - i.e. cheaper, cleaner, safer, more convenient public transport etc. etc
I see this as good and positive. To an extent it has been done in that the trains seem much more acceptable to me these days than previously and I use them a reasonable amount. However, we need safe and secure car parks outside cities, effective, clean and safe buses / trams / whatever etc, etc,
2) Pricing motoring out of the reach of some motorists and therefore taking them off the road.
Firstly, I see this as bad but secondly I cannot see on what moral level a socialist government can consider a measure which is massively weighted against the less well off and virtually leaves the better off unscathed.
I don't even know how much the congestion charge is, although I do take my car into London from time to time. However, it clearly isn't enough to stop me. Whereas for my sister it is prohibitive and she simply is not able to take her car into London whatever the need.
So my sister cannot drive in London yet I can. The only difference between us ? I earn more. Now wouldn't you have thought that a Labour government would struggle with that point ?
(oh, and my cars are waaaay less green than hers).
I do not, nor will I ever, vote Labour. But for those of you that do, how do you equate this with your left-wing / socialist / call-them-what-you-will ideals ?
|
I believe that No 10 are in breach of the marketing e-mail rules as their FAQs say they will contact us unless "we ask them not to do so" but there is no facility on the petitions web-site to ask them not to!
When did you last see a commercial web-site without a carefully worded opt out box!
I have raised this with the Information Commissioner's office - it may help if others do so!
|
|
|
I agree with 1) and 2) wholeheartedly, but there is a 3) and a 4).
3) In this day and age of instant electronic communication there is no reason whatsoever for a significant number of office based workers to routinely trudge to an office x miles away from 9 to 5 or to even commute at all. Force companies to support flexible / remote working unless they can present a sound business case why this is not possible. Many companies offer this already and thrive.
4) Reintroduce free school buses - just look at the difference in traffic conditions during school holidays particularly in town and city centres. Many other countries do this as a matter of course, and it drastically reduces school run traffic.
Cheers
DP
|
In this day and age of instant electronic communication there is no reason whatsoever
>>for a significant number of office based workers to routinely trudge to an office x miles away Many companies offer this already and thrive.
>>
It sounds so simple but the implications of H&S re the working conditions at home are a concern.
Correct chair, desk etc. etc.
I suspect many turn a blind eye to this but I am sure some clever legal type will take up a case.
|
|
The level of thinking is best exemplified by " There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue."
That is so misleading..and WRONG.
There may be 6 Million more vehicles but they wwill not and cannot be all on the raod at once. The population of the UK has not increased by 6 Million in this time.. or are we all driving 2 cars a day? :-)
Lies and spin imo...
Of course IF we think that through to its logical conclusion, one way to reduce congestion or slow the increase is to stop population growth. i.e through a policy to restrict immigration? (PS I am not saying we should just thinking ...)
So what is the Gov't doing to halt the increase in the UK population especially in the crowded areas like the South?
Not a lot..
madf
|
>>The population of the UK has not increased by 6 Million in this time
I take your point, but the growth in population is not strictly relevant. A more appropriate metric would be the growth in the number of car owners.
|
Hands up all those who believe that Tony Bliar actually wrote said e-mail's contents......
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
So what is the Gov't doing to halt the increase in the UK population especially in the crowded areas like the South?
It's encouraging the growth by building new houses in the green belt, flood plains, Thames marshes, etc.
|
I don't know who wrote it, but when I was at school I was taught to use either a full stop or "and". The word "And" should never follow a full stop.
Usual spin - how many of those stuck in traffic do it out of choice?
|
|
Haven't had my email yet, does this mean he's not speaking to me? Perhaps I should be grateful. Now if I can only get Mr. Brown to do the same I can rest easy.
|
Haven't had my email yet, does this mean he's not speaking to me? Perhaps I should be grateful. Now if I can only get Mr. Brown to do the same I can rest easy.
Check your Spam folder, thats where I found mine - funnily enough, thats where it is staying as well!
|
I don't know who wrote it, but when I was at school I was taught to use either a full stop or "and". The word "And" should never follow a full stop.
Funny that you should say that; Charles Dickens does use that construct as do other established authors. And so do I.
So a good general rule but can be disobeyed.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
"If ever I had any doubts that this man occupies a very different world to the average person on the street, they have been confirmed, and then some."
Quite. The reply is pathetic and shallow.
"Yet again, he completely ignores the main point. He seems to think people clog up main routes in rush hour to be narrow minded and awkward, and charging them will make them see the error of their ways. Isn't it more that they clog up main routes in rush hour because they have to get to work, and public transport already runs at capacity? That's if public transport is even locally accessible which it often isn't. How does he propose people keep Gordon's precious economy functioning if they are forced to pay through the nose for the "pleasure" of getting to work? Does he think they'll wake up and think "I won't go in today."? What planet is he on?"
Exactly. Well put.
However give the man a Smartie as he has correctly identified the problem as too much traffic on the roads. Doh!
As a colleague said to me yesterday, the problem is that Nu Labour approach this with punitive measures. But we travel on the roads in order to earn a living. So the solutions might be:
> Encourage companies to relocate away from congested areas. even if this works, it is a long term solution.
> Encourage car sharing. Mmm. This one might work.
> Move commercial traffic off the roads and onto rail, or even use waterways and sea freight. This one might have legs. How about we move the mail back onto trains, where it used to be? Of course this would require investment rather than punitive taxation so it is a no no.
> Home working. Mmmm. Can factory workers and nurses do this? Most people can't except for some of the middle classes.
> Improve public transport. Sadly this will not be a goer unless there is MASSIVE investment e.g. new high speed transport links. Public transport is just too inconvenient for most of us, as rail links are often not direct, and we don't live near the rail station. And of course the price is high. So even with congestion going by car is quicker.
"Hateful little man!"
Quite.
I am astonished at how incredibly superficial the letter is, and how little he has thought about the real issues. It can be rephrased as "How can we ever so nice middle class professionals clear the riff raff from the roads so we can get to and from work easily?".
|
>Leif
I am sorry your last sentence.. is just wrong..
"I am astonished at how incredibly superficial the letter is, and how little he has thought about the real issues. It can be rephrased as "How can we ever so nice middle class professionals clear the riff raff from the roads so we can get to and from work easily?".
Change "Professionals " to "politicans "
and delete "middle class" (because we're Labour and we cannot admit to being working class, or upper class or middle class)
and you've got it in 1..
How many Government Ministers don't use their Ministerial cars in London? Until they all do, it's just plain HYPOCRISY...(sorry for shouting) .. cos of course they add to congestion.
Oh I forgot .. MPs think themselves above the law...
madf
|
>Leif I am sorry your last sentence.. is just wrong..
:) That gave me a good laff.
|
|
Blair gave similar brush-offs to the petitions on junk mail and ID cards. Like other marketeers, he carries out marketing research to get responses that please him, and rejects it if it doesn't.
|
Does anyone know roughly how many litres of road fuel (lets stick with petrol and diesel) are sold in the UK each year? and the duty/revenue that is generated by the sale, and if that figure includes or does not include the VAT element?
Thank you
|
> Home working. Mmmm. Can factory workers and nurses do this? Most people can't except for some of the middle classes.
I agree, but the point I was making is that those who do have to commute will enjoy less congestion. That is supposed to be the point of this whole sorry episode. I emphasise "supposed to be"
|
>> > Home working. Mmmm. Can factory workers and nurses do this? >> Most people can't except for some of the middle classes. I agree, but the point I was making is that those who do have to commute will enjoy less congestion. That is supposed to be the point of this whole sorry episode. I emphasise "supposed to be"
I travelled to work on the train for 4 weeks. It was only Hayes to Henley which is not far, but it was so good that I started taking driving lessons and subsequently passed my test. Never again. 20 minutes walk to the station. Wait for train. Get on train, along with numeous noisy school children. Sit if lucky or stand. Change trains. Wait in the cold for next train. Travel on train. Walk for 15 minutes from train station to office.
Clearly it is okay if you live near a station with a direct route to work ...
|
|
Oops. My last post did not relate to the quoted text. Oh well. Who needs a brain ...
|
I dont understand why they dont implement what they talked about years ago, changing the hours for school so they dont coincide with the 'business' hours on the roads, maybe offer a tax relief for companies to pay for extra night staff to take deliveries and for delivery drivers etc to work night shifts when the roads are empty.
Just imagine, ruch hour no longer contains white van man, big ass wagons and soccer mom in her mpv.
No cost to driver, incentives to delivery companies and businesses recieving deliveries and more jobs created for night staff.
|
Does it really matter what we think , if all the political parties agree to some sort of charging scheme? I do not see the conservatives opposing this or suggesting alternatives in a big way (at least at this point). Neither can I see the LDs opposing this at this moment.
Personally, I am prepared to pay my 'way'. I would like to see the principle of paying ones way applied to more public sectors and public goods. Sure we need a basic social net for the not so able, but it must stay at that, 'basic'. For example, we cannot afford breast augmentation on the NHS - and yet it is happening.
|
The level of thinking is best exemplified by " There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue." That is so misleading..and WRONG. There may be 6 Million more vehicles but they wwill not and cannot be all on the raod at once. The population of the UK has not increased by 6 Million in this time.. or are we all driving 2 cars a day? :-) Lies and spin imo... >> madf
I own 2 cars and a m/c, which with wifey's car makes a total of 4 in our household.... We only use 2 a day for commuting locally and only 1 for long journeys. I'm more affluent now than i was 20 years ago, so i've chosen to have more, than i did then, but I can still only drive one at a time.
|
>Westpig
Precisely .. in one.
And this from a Mr Blair who is attempting to prove his case and have an open and "honest" debate...
Words fail me..
madf
|
I haven't had my e-mail from the Emperor yet, and to be quite honest, I thought that David H was taking the mickey when I read his post - it sounds like some satire written for a TV programme with so many glib phrases and platitudes - ". I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, ." "let me be clear straight away", "we can all agree", "tackling congestion is a key priority ", "A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair", "build a consensus ", "Yours sincerely"
However, I really think that the worst thing about this is the millions that will be spent on consultants, trials, etc before they find that it is unworkable. How much have they spent on the NHS computer thingy which is supposed to make our records available everywhere? Does it work? No. Will it work? Well not according to the Fujitso bloke who is (or was)in charge. And NHS records do not move so do you think they have a chance of tracking every vehicle in England? (the Scots and Welsh will never vote for it).
I have seen posts on here saying that "the technology is in place" - but it isn't, we will have to use Gallileo, which was originally supposed to be operational in 2012, but this has now been put back to 2020.
So, I reckon that even if I live to be 100 (40 years) there still won't be a system that works to track every vehicle and by that time how much will the cost have gone up to? On recent record of Gov IT projects (or others like Wembley, NHS system, spending on NHS, education , Olympics, etc, etc) it will at least treble (without any noticeable improvement) - this is what we should worry about - the total waste of our taxes. And don't talk about circular flow of income, it doesn't seem to come back to those who pay it, or the deserving poor, it goes to the already rich or undeserving and the former can afford to pay those who make sure they keep it in offshore funds (or something like that).
Sorry about rant, I just feel that this is all a ridiculous charade. Going to have a glass of red stuff (bought in France to avoid sticking more of my dosh in the despicable Brown's coffers to waste on blooming madcap, wasteful schemes which they appear to have no idea about - as an example (paltry I admit) but do you realise that the Education Minister's recent example of changing school syllabii to include "Global Warming" is rubbish? To my knowledge it has been part of Geography and Science syllabii since 1986!
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
it will be existing car owners increasing the mileage they do - more trips and longer trips. That is the key difference between the continent and here. Germans own quite a few more cars than we do as a nation but they use them less.
The key change over the last 20 years that has made congestion worse in my view are:
Rising female participation in the workforce directly leading to and becoming dependent on a two car ownership per family.
The decentralisation of retailing, workplaces and leisure activities to outer urban and fringe areas where free car parking is supplied driving up and supporting car use (eg hospital relocations, new business parks, low skilled labour employers moving from single factory locations to a myriad of warehouse parks near motorway junctions meaning even low paid staff can't get there without a car)
The lack of a regional spatial strategy to co-ordinate new development of housing at sufficient density and along transport corridors to support viable public transport
A dominant highly sophisticated marketing operation by the car industry to encourage car ownership...when was the last time u saw a decent bill board advert saying "ooh I am a successful sexually virile employed male and I take the bus/the bike to work".....Err no but u passed 20 billboards advertising the latest output from the car industry....
|
|
|
|
|
There are lots of people who voted for him ,if you thing hes bad wait till the next Scottish self centered dreamer takes over.
Agreed, he is a 'bean-counter' not a leader and when ever the bean-counters take over, in a company or running a country disaster soon follows.
If you are earning more than £8K a year he considers you as being a decadent swine who is to be relieved of the surplus money !
|
I read at the weekend a piece in one of the UK papers that this petition to the Govt. Website has generated some 1million plus names and email addresses. The writer of the article made a point of the fact that the Nr.10 site now has a database to which they are entitled to answer the original mail and send a further two emails which would not be considered as unsolicited contact. This is permissible under OFCOM regulation. I cannot remember (as usual)but I have no doubt someone else will find it and post a link to the piece.
So folks expect the electioneering rubbish in due course. Serves you all right.
Happy Petitioning. Always a waste of time and effort.
Newsreels never show the boxes full of the lists of signatories being transferred from the front of Nr.10 to the dustbins at the rear. Phil I
|
I have to disagree with someof the stuff on here. What else do you use where there is no link at all between demand for something and its price? Very few things, I suspect. For some reason, roads seem to be exempt from economics in your minds. Yes, there's tax on fuel, but I pay the same tax on fuel for an empty road as I do for fuel on a full one (possibly more, as I drive at erm...70+ on empty motorways and cruise at about 50mph on my journey to and from work when it's busier).
As for the idea that it's meant to get poor people off the road, I also have to disagree. The people who would pay would be those racking up higher than average mileages. I'm prepared to bet real money that people who commute furthest to work are doing it because they get rewarded well for it.
As I said above, the problem is that there is NO chance that it would be revenue-neutral. Governments don't work like that. This government certainly doesn't. It'll just be bunged on top of what we currently pay, so it will be incremental cost rather than replacement cost.
I also object on principle to yet another opportunity for the state to snoop on me.
V
|
I have to agree with Vin.
There should be a direct link between demand and price and if this is the only way to get those NuLab-voting, minimum wage oiks out of the way of my Jaguar then so be it.
I'm sure that once the £Billions in startup costs, £Billions in fixing the F-ups and £Billions in yearly running costs have been recovered then some money will filter down into public transport alternatives to get them back off benefits. Some of them may even be lucky enough to get a job as one of the enforcers, tracking down evaders.
An added benefit is that it will also get rid of those damn annoying pensioners in their Civics and Micras.
I really can't see a downside to this.
;-<
Kevin...
PS. I got my email from Tone, it was in my spambox too.
The content of his email matches his performance at the dispatch-box. Full of spin, lobby-group predictions and downright lies. I'm amazed that the idiot still think he can get away with this bull. He still hasn't twigged to the fact that no-one believes a word he says.
Come on Yates, let's have something to cheer us up, I'm getting more depressed every day.
|
Kevin: "...if this is the only way to get those NuLab-voting, minimum wage oiks out of the way of my Jaguar then so be it."
Is this a thinly veiled attempt to say that my viewpoint is irrelevant because I drive a Jaguar? If so, I have no doubt whatsoever that you're talking through your hat.
Yes, I drive a Jaguar. You may have noted if you've looked at my posts that I drive a Jaguar that cost me £8,250 - less than my neighbour's poxy Ford Ka cost him when they first came out. So, please don't make assumptions about my income from the fact that I like to drive a decent car. 98% of my driving is funded by me. Living in Southampton with family i regularly visit in Sheffield, I suspect I'd be a pretty big loser from this plan. However, being a personal loser from something doesn't make it wrong. I just think it makes sense, but only if it replaces all the other taxes we face on cars.
If you were making some other point and I have misunderstood, then I apologise, but it's too subtle for me to grasp. If you were indeed trying to portray me as selfish and uncaring, then you'll no doubt be pleased to know (on a class war type of level) that I'm genuinely upset.
V
|
Vin,
I wasn't taking a pop at you. It was aimed at myself, I also drive a Jaguar on a Big Blue car allowance.
>Living in Southampton with family i regularly visit in Sheffield, I suspect I'd be a pretty big loser from this plan.
My folks live just NW of Sheffield, I live in Basingstoke, so I guess we'd lose about the same.
>I just think it makes sense, but only if it replaces all the other taxes we face on cars.
If you read Tone's email they have no intention of replacing any of the other motoring taxes.
He starts by saying "this is not about imposing 'stealth taxes'" then later in the email he contradicts himself by saying "Tackling congestion in this way (adding capacity)..requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes". I doubt the EU would want to give up their take from the VAT either.
Did you also notice the old chestnuts they drag out every time they need to justify one of their schemes, that of "either health and education or extra taxes" as if there is no alternative.
Their own study (?) estimated that the startup cost would be up to £62B, the annual running costs £5B and the net yearly income £12B. So, assuming their calculations are correct (bets anyone?) and ignoring the startup costs, the extra tax take would be £17B pa. which works out to £500 per UK drivers license (I think there are 34M drivers licenses issued).
An extra £500 (after income tax), or more likely £1K+ may not break the bank at Casa Kevin or Casa Vin but it would certainly affect low or fixed-income families.
>but it's too subtle for me to grasp.
Probably my fault. English is not my first language, I'm from Yorkshire ;-)
>I'm genuinely upset.
Honestly, no offense intended.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
"Come on Yates, let's have something to cheer us up"
Just arrest him, please. You don't have to hold him or even charge him, but just the arrest will ensure that he's persona non grata in America, whose visa waiver for UK citizens is cancelled the moment you have a police record...
|
|
|
|
|
|
They'll be out soon. Then we'll be in trouble!
|
|
|
|
|
