[damo_in_sale]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6678915.stm

Now then, the above title is intentionally provocative simply because it demonstrates why I object to such ill thought out eco-policy.

As an aside, I often get a cab to work at a cost of £50 per day simply because I can't be bothered driving in the traffic (absurd I know). So perhaps the title is more true than I care to admit. It is no less for that an immoral policy, in my opinion.

Please discuss.

Regards,

Damo

[Jakeh1969]

When Gordon Brown understands the effect on business that this new road tax will have there'll be a hasty retreat from Labour's equivalent of the Poll Tax.

If I were a local politician I would wait and see if my nearest economic competitor was introducing it first. If they did I wouldn't and steal their business. Doesn't bother me as I ride a motorbike and usually there is no charge for them. If it keeps the dribbling pensioners and benefit scroungers off the road, yippee.

However, persons who have a peripatetic job such as supply teachers, social workers, outreach workers etc will definately be on the losing end and no doubt will be subsidised by other road users.

How long though before you can buy an electronic device from China that will bypass or fry the devices fitted to your vehicle, maybe even a strong magnet will do it?

[Jakeh1969]

Originally Posted by DerekD

How long though before you can buy an electronic device from China that will bypass or fry the devices fitted to your vehicle, maybe even a strong magnet will do it?

Knowing this governments track record with technology it'll be easily bypassed.

Or easily broken with a hammer!

[hermanmunster]

If these are electronic devices or tags then perhaps we should all buy clones of the one on the PM's official Jag.......but of course it won't have one.

[damo_in_sale]

Hi there NJP, hope your well.

It would find it interesting if you could comment on issues of policy. It strikes me that you are very shy to comment on such matters.

Do you think it's a good idea to price the 'plebs' off the road?

Kind regards,

Damo

PS, I live in hope of receiving a reply to my personal message, after all, it was sent months ago and I am sure you are an honourable chap.

[Zack Attack]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Hi there NJP, hope your well.

It would find it interesting if you could comment on issues of policy. It strikes me that you are very shy to comment on such matters.

Do you think it's a good idea to price the 'plebs' off the road?

Kind regards,

Damo

PS, I live in hope of receiving a reply to my personal message, after all, it was sent months ago and I am sure you are an honourable chap.

So you're taunting NJP now? And if you don't respect his opinion, why ask if he thinks it's a good idea to price plebs off the road?

You private messaged him aswell? Care to enlighten us as to what the message said, I mean now you've told all of us, you've got me interested. Why would you tell us this, instead of private messaging him this again? Why the change?

No wonder he's not responding to you, no sane person responds to (really poor attempts at) bullying. Atleast make the bullying intelligent, so that even replying to the bullying wouldn't make the so called recipient look like a buffoon. If it's even possible, you fail at bullying.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Zack Attack

So you're taunting NJP now? And if you don't respect his opinion, why ask if he thinks it's a good idea to price plebs off the road?

You private messaged him aswell? Care to enlighten us as to what the message said, I mean now you've told all of us, you've got me interested. Why would you tell us this, instead of private messaging him this again? Why the change?

No wonder he's not responding to you, no sane person responds to (really poor attempts at) bullying. Atleast make the bullying intelligent, so that even replying to the bullying wouldn't make the so called recipient look like a buffoon. If it's even possible, you fail at bullying.

I am indeed taunting NJP, just a little, because he rarely writes about policy. And as it happens I do respect NJP's opinions, it is his abuse of fellow forum members I dislike the most, and second on my list of NJP dislikes is his cowardice regarding commenting upon policy and economics.
And indeed I did contact him on PM some months ago, and it was a substantial PM as well, albeit one that I wrote after returning from the pub. It was also respectful and polite. I do however believe that it is, at the very least, appalling manners to fail to respond. I feel my fellow forum members need to know the character of the man/woman.
As for the content, that is between myself and NJP: PM, it was my understanding, stands for 'Private Message'. You needn't worry, it's nothing as sensational as the bull your idol Tony Blair gave us regarding the WMD capability of Saddam Hussein.

Now, lets get back on topic: Zack and NJP, do you believe that 'plebs' should be priced off the road?

Kind regards,

Damo

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Jakeh1969

When Gordon Brown understands the effect on business that this new road tax will have there'll be a hasty retreat from Labour's equivalent of the Poll Tax.

Gordon Broon, in my opinion, is fascinated with big business, and yet he appears to despise small businesses. If you want evidence to bolster my opinion then there is plenty over the last ten years, but his last budget is a perfect example: reduced company tax on large companies and increased tax on small companies.

So plumbers, electricians, freelance engineers, Lumagen distributors and the nice lady running the corner butty shop all get hammered, whilst Tescos gets a nice fat wad from the treasury.

In my opinion, the thing that Broon despises about small companies is that the little man or woman can set one up and do well for themselves, independent of the state. But he thinks that us plebs should know our place and not get ideas above our station; because if we are allowed to do so then that means that those of us who are clever and hard working can move ahead of our peers who are not. Like all socialists, either in or out of the closet, this idea he hates.

From the socialist perspective, it’s much better to cap the ability of the little folk to better themselves because this increases ‘equality’. That I believe is Broons philosophy.

How this plays out with regards to future ’eco-policy’ I don’t know, but expect more bashing of us plebs who want to get on and do well.

Kind regards,

Damo

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Now, lets get back on topic: Zack and NJP, do you believe that 'plebs' should be priced off the road?

Kind regards,

Damo

I don't. I think that some of the 9% drop in real terms in motoring costs has contributed significantly to the rise in congestion.

I think that it's axiomatic that poor people can't afford cars and need subsidised puplic transport.

I think that the Government should introduce road pricing as a revenue neutral exercise (I appreciate that they won't) so the 'plebs' (you do mean the 'proles' don't you?) won't pay any more for their motoring in real terms than they did in 1997.

People do not always fully appreciate just how much their motoring costs them and the rest of us.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

I don't. I think that some of the 9% drop in real terms in motoring costs has contributed significantly to the rise in congestion.

To me, a drop in real terms driving cost is something to be celebrated. We should be jumping up and down in delight that more poor people in our country are freed from the shackles of public transport.

We should be partying in celebration that more of our fellow countrymen have been given the liberty that the motor vehicle provides. Yippeeeeeeee!!!! Whaaaheeeeyyyy!

I'm ok now

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

To me, a drop in real terms driving cost is something to be celebrated. We should be jumping up and down in delight that more poor people in our country are freed from the shackles of public transport.

We should be partying in celebration that more of our fellow countrymen have been given the liberty that the motor vehicle provides. Yippeeeeeeee!!!! Whaaaheeeeyyyy!

I'm ok now

Unfortunately, for every one person in the queue in front of you 'freed from the shackles of public transport' there's another 9 who are doing a journey by car they might have done by public transport otherwise.

And they are also freed from the safety of public transport to be candidates for one of the 9 daily prizes of death on our roads.

[Sonic67]

When congestion charging came in in London a lot of people switched to public transport. Now people have switched back and accept it as yet another tax on driving along with fuel, road tax, parking charges, mandatory insurance and everything else. All that will happen is some people will switch at first and roads will be a little emptier. A few years down the line and the traffic will be back.

For me I cycled to work for a time until I got knocked down by a truck and I took the bus but it took an hour to get to work. By car I can do it in 15 minutes if the schools are off 25 if it's school run time.

Get rid of the buses and you get rid of the stop start traffic flow.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

When congestion charging came in in London a lot of people switched to public transport. Now people have switched back and accept it as yet another tax on driving along with fuel, road tax, parking charges, mandatory insurance and everything else. All that will happen is some people will switch at first and roads will be a little emptier. A few years down the line and the traffic will be back.

For me I cycled to work for a time until I got knocked down by a truck and I took the bus but it took an hour to get to work. By car I can do it in 15 minutes if the schools are off 25 if it's school run time.

Get rid of the buses and you get rid of the stop start traffic flow.

People haven't 'switched back', London public transport and particularly bus usage is still rising rapidly.

Congestion in the CC charge area may be at pre charge levels, congestion in the rest of London and the UK has risen consistently over those three years and is way over pre charge levels. The charge will only reduce relative congestion.

Wouldn't it be nice if your journey to work always took 15 minutes? And schoolkids were forced onto safer public transport?

[Sonic67]

Okay so congestion charging brought a three year grace period. Now that the congestion is back to how it was before it started what do you do next? Also with the amount of money raised from congestion charging spent on public transport why aren't people now using it? Why do people still prefer to pay up and go by car?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Okay so congestion charging brought a three year grace period. Now that the congestion is back to how it was before it started what do you do next? Also with the amount of money raised from congestion charging spent on public transport why aren't people now using it? Why do people still prefer to pay up and go by car?

What we do next is thank goodness that congestion is still lower than it would be if the charge wasn't there - its not a three year grace period, its hopefully a permanent state of having congestion levels three years behind what they would be.

People are now using public transport more - just as I said in my post. They are just using cars more too. Because motoring is cheaper than ten years ago.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

....is his cowardice regarding commenting upon policy and economics.
I feel my fellow forum members need to know the character of the man/woman.

Now, lets get back on topic: Zack and NJP, do you believe that 'plebs' should be priced off the road?

Damo

What is cowardly about not commenting on policy? NJP argues his case from a scientific (pro MMGW) stance and doesn't vary from that. Good for him. A lot of people have taken against fighting GW only because it is promoted by the government. Thats plain daft.
Lets keep it simple. Scientists can argue the pro's and cons of the science, politicians and everyone else can argue about policy. Good science is conducted by those who are independant of the process (which in the case of GW is nigh on impossible) but by not commenting on policy, NJP is staying as on subject as he can, which is the way science should be.

[johntheexpat]

And as for the congestion charge, if only Ken Livingstone was allowed to implement his transport policy without interference, you might see something that really works for the benefit of London.
Never forget that almost 20 yrs ago, Ken took London Transport and by dropping the fare to a flat 10p turned a loss making heap of doggie doo it into a profit centre that people were keen to use and were proud of. Nobody seems to understand supply side economics when applied to public transport as well as Mr. Livingstone but everyone else wants to interfere. Let the man do what he needs to do and appreciate the result.
Public Transport should be everybody's first choice, not something to be avoided.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

Unfortunately, for every one person in the queue in front of you 'freed from the shackles of public transport' there's another 9 who are doing a journey by car they might have done by public transport otherwise.

Otherwise what mate? The above doesn't make too much sense really.

Originally Posted by andykn

And they are also freed from the safety of public transport to be candidates for one of the 9 daily prizes of death on our roads.

I'll take the risk thanks People die, not nice I know, but I got over that a long time ago. How many people are attacked on the busses by the way?

Cheers,

Damo

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

Wouldn't it be nice if your journey to work always took 15 minutes? And schoolkids were forced onto safer public transport?

It would be bleedin’ amazing: at 3AM in the morning with zero traffic it would take 25 minutes for me to drive to work. On public transport, traffic free at a time optimised for public transport availability, it would take me around two hours. And I live in Greater Manchester, only around ten miles from my workplace.

And no, it wouldn't be 'nice' if school kids were 'forced' onto 'safer' public transport, it would be authoritarian. Some people though are so convinced of their own righteousness that they are willing to ‘force’ others to bend to their every whim. I believe Stalin suffered the same defect.

Regards,

Damo

[MikeTV]

I don't believe that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the concept of taxing people for polluting, as a general policy. Despite having mildly left-wing sympathies, I recognise that this will impact people of lessor means, but I am not overly concerned. That's the nature of capitalism, and I am not a communist - I do not believe everyone should be entitled to every advantage, as some kind of right (and I doubt very many other people do either).

So yes, tax the polluters. Let people bear the cost of the damage they do to the environment. In a market economy, it seems like a logical solution to limit pollution, and to drive demand for renewable energy sources. It won't happen without measures such as this, because it's always going to be far cheaper just to consume our fossil fuel reserves.

This is a global issue. Those that will ultimately suffer most from climate change are today's poorest communities. Those of us driving around in vehicles are the wealthiest, and a very small minority. Wealth is relative.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

What is cowardly about not commenting on policy? NJP argues his case from a scientific (pro MMGW) stance and doesn't vary from that. Good for him. A lot of people have taken against fighting GW only because it is promoted by the government. Thats plain daft.
Lets keep it simple. Scientists can argue the pro's and cons of the science, politicians and everyone else can argue about policy. Good science is conducted by those who are independant of the process (which in the case of GW is nigh on impossible) but by not commenting on policy, NJP is staying as on subject as he can, which is the way science should be.

I can see fully where you’re coming from, I really can. But the science means truly nothing if policy is not enacted based upon the science.
But I believe that the policies need to take into account the economics. They simply have to otherwise the population will not accept the policies, unless they are grotesquely deceived.

Now economics isn't simply the study of 'money', as many may think. Micro-economics, very broadly and very much simplified, is the study of how people choose to allocate resources given alternative choices- the pursuit of happiness or ‘utility’, in economics speak. I am not claiming to be an authority on economics, it’s just something that I find very interesting and incredibly important: I am a very junior amateur, so to speak.

The above is relevant for the following and very simple reason: Assuming MMGW is real, which would make the individual more ‘happy’?

1) Making huge efforts here in the UK to reduce our carbon emissions, along with the possible consequences to individual prosperity and liberty (this a whole discussion in its own). And hope that we can convince other nations such as the US, China and India to change their ways.
2) Accept that global temperatures will rise and we simply grin and bare the results.

Please forgive me if the above seems incoherent, I have returned from the pub and I need my bed There is a lot more to discuss.

Kind regards,

Damo

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I don't believe that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the concept of taxing people for polluting, as a general policy.

Higher mpg’s means lower cost per mile. Lower mpg’s means higher cost per mile. Taxing people for polluting has been with us for donkeys years.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Despite having mildly left-wing sympathies, I recognise that this will impact people of lessor means, but I am not overly concerned.

You share that trait with champagne socialists such as Polly Toynbee and Anthony (Tony) Wedgwood Benn. I am firmly of the right, and the impact that this will have on the poor in our society concerns me greatly.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

So yes, tax the polluters. Let people bear the cost of the damage they do to the environment.

Fuel duty and mpg does this already.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

In a market economy, it seems like a logical solution to limit pollution, and to drive demand for renewable energy sources. It won't happen without measures such as this, because it's always going to be far cheaper just to consume our fossil fuel reserves.

So we need to make fossil fuels beyond the reach of the poor? When do we stop, is it before or after you personally can no longer afford to travel by car?

Originally Posted by MikeTV

This is a global issue. Those that will ultimately suffer most from climate change are today's poorest communities. Those of us driving around in vehicles are the wealthiest, and a very small minority. Wealth is relative.

What impact upon the poorest communities will ‘green’ policies have regarding GW? This concerns me greatly.

Mike, I’m not trying to have a fight, I am just trying to point out the problems that this kind of thinking entails. I truly hope you understand.

Kind regards,

Damo

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Fuel duty and mpg does this already.

Agreed. But perhaps it's not enough of a deterent, given the volume of cars on the road?

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

So we need to make fossil fuels beyond the reach of the poor? When do we stop, is it before or after you personally can no longer afford to travel by car?

It's already beyond my means, and so I use public transport when possible. We stop, when we've met (or exceeded) our Kyoto targets.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

What impact upon the poorest communities will ‘green’ policies have regarding GW? This concerns me greatly.

I am glad you are concerned. My concerns are about rising sea levels, droughts, and other adverse weather conditions, and their economic consequences for the poor, as well as how nations can develop economically in a environmentally sustainable way. I do believe this is possible, with assistance from wealthier nations.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

It would be bleedin’ amazing: at 3AM in the morning with zero traffic it would take 25 minutes for me to drive to work. On public transport, traffic free at a time optimised for public transport availability, it would take me around two hours. And I live in Greater Manchester, only around ten miles from my workplace.

And no, it wouldn't be 'nice' if school kids were 'forced' onto 'safer' public transport, it would be authoritarian. Some people though are so convinced of their own righteousness that they are willing to ‘force’ others to bend to their every whim. I believe Stalin suffered the same defect.

Regards,

Damo

I was asking the previous poster who said it took him 15 mins with no school run and 25 mins with it.

And the main point of road pricing is its not a Stalin like authoritarian diktat banning the (almost totally unnecessary) 'school run'. You just make people pay what it costs the rest of us. The increased safety of our children is just an extra bonus.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

You share that trait with champagne socialists such as Polly Toynbee and Anthony (Tony) Wedgwood Benn. I am firmly of the right, and the impact that this will have on the poor in our society concerns me greatly.

This is the great Tory misconception, that 'poor people' might be priced off our roads.

Poor people, by definition, cannot afford to buy, tax, insure, maintain and fuel a car. They need good public transport to enable them to find work.

If the economics persuade more people to use public transport, then it should improve, poor people will benefit.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

This is the great Tory misconception, that 'poor people' might be priced off our roads.

Poor people, by definition, cannot afford to buy, tax, insure, maintain and fuel a car. They need good public transport to enable them to find work.

There will be poor people who at present can just afford the luxury of a car, and they may well be struggling to do so. Road pricing may tip the balance and mean that this luxury is now out of their reach. After all, the policy is designed to reduce road traffic. I don't see why you have difficulty in seeing this.

Regards,

Damo

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

There will be poor people who at present can just afford the luxury of a car, and they may well be struggling to do so. Road pricing may tip the balance and mean that this luxury is now out of their reach. After all, the policy is designed to reduce road traffic. I don't see why you have difficulty in seeing this.

Regards,

Damo

I still maintain that poverty and car ownership are incompatible, pretty much by definition. If car ownership to you is just a struggle rather than an impossibility you ain't poor, just not very well off.

I think that the best way to get road pricing accepted is to promise to introduce it on a revenue neutral basis, so whether you are on the borderline of being able to afford a car or not, you will not necessarily have to pay more overall for your motoring.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

I think that the best way to get road pricing accepted is to promise to introduce it on a revenue neutral basis, so whether you are on the borderline of being able to afford a car or not, you will not necessarily have to pay more overall for your motoring.

And what effect will that have? I'm not sure you've thought this one through.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

And what effect will that have? I'm not sure you've thought this one through.

The idea is that people will pay more to travel to certain places at certain times of the day and also pay more of their motoring costs per mile, primarily by reducing road fund licence charges and petrol duty.

For most people, it costs around 30p per mile, but a lot of people don't see it that way. Its not about pricing people off the road altogether but reducing the number of trips we all do by making some more expensive. Perhaps the school runners will double up, perhaps some businesses will locate themselves in less congested areas and so on.