idiotsavant
addict
Reged: 01/11/2006
Posts: 513
|
|
OK, so petrol is going through the roof. But seems to me that there's a bucket load of shite being talked. I read this.
•It was the Tories who instigated an automatic 3% above inflation increase in fuel duty at every budget.
•Between 1997 and 2006 the cost of car travel in real terms fell by 10 per cent. Rail travel has gone up 6 per cent over the same period. So the poor car-free folk are paying the price, while car drivers (and us) have been getting it easy.
Rail subsidies have fallen, while bus travel costs have gone up between four and five times in the last three years. So there's no investment in public transport and the road haulage lobby gets its arse kissed. Example? The government OKs heavier trucks on the road when the original plan was to get freight on the trains and off the roads.
It's in Private Eye, issue 1212, page 9.
There's loads of info in it and not a lot of politics in the way of the facts either.
-------------------- Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
|
Chez
enthusiast
Reged: 16/10/2007
Posts: 278
Loc: Gloucestershire
|
|
Can you explain further how the cost of car travel has decreased by 10% when road tax is higher, fuel prices are higher and the cost of cars has risen???
All i know is that where i live petrol is now £1.30 a litre, compared to £1.01 just before chrismas..
-------------------- "Racing is life... everything before and after is just waiting." Steve McQueen
|
chappers
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 31/12/2006
Posts: 5379
Loc: Mind your own business
|
|
Private Eye  Haven't they had several law suits against them for miss reporting the facts.
|
Biggles
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/05/2007
Posts: 2206
Loc: I am over here!
|
|
In was also Thatcher that did for the railways (particularly freight) by de-nationalsing them and put up the max axle weight on trucks twice because she thought it better that everything should be delivered by road.
It was short termism fueled [sorry] by north sea oil.
-------------------- Post US election quote "They've kicked our backsides, we've got to lick our wounds..." )
|
shinybusa
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 08/01/2008
Posts: 1608
Loc: away with the fairies..
|
|
Well ....if the good old US OF A invade IRAN sooner rather than later, then petrol will be really cheap.....have you ever thought that it's not the lack of Oil but the lack of refining plants....the one that got wiped out off the coast of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina hasn't helped!
Political rhetoric about who did what when is arse...all politicians are Liars! the problem lies in the lack of refining facilities ...demand is outstripping supply...simple market forces at work, nothing more , nothing less....
-------------------- Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day....
Teach a man to fish.........................................and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day!!
|
xxrider
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/11/2006
Posts: 2267
Loc: Somewhere over the rainbow.......
|
|
Aaahh... Private Eye.
Never been known to let the facts get in the way of a good story. And yes, they have been successfully prosecuted in the past for "misrepresentation" of the facts. To coin a phrase.
All of the oil producing countries are producing a more or less unvarying volume of oil. Countries like China, India and Vietnam have more than doubled their consumption in the last few years. China now consumes 30% of the total global oil production.
Exploration and investment into new sources of oil virtually stopped 25 years ago, when the oil companies were making low profits. Despite the calls for the oil companies to be taxed on their now ASTRONOMICAL profits, this would be BAD - instead they need to be encouraged to use their profits to fund research, in an effort to increase production. The alternatives - new green fuels, just not viable yet. Asking developing countries to stop developing and growing - not gonna happen.
Meanwhile, we pay what we pay for petrochemical products. BTW, if you remove the amount of tax we pay in the UK per litre of fuel, our prices are about the same as the rest of the developed countries in the world.
-------------------- The simplest questions are the most profound. Where were you born? Where is your home? Where are you going? What are you doing? Think about these once in a while and watch your answers change.
|
KwH
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1714
Loc: Carmarthen, Dyfed
|
|
Quote:
So there's no investment in public transport and the road haulage lobby gets its arse kissed.
There are some facts in there, but the conclusions are a bunch of arse. It's all very well to talk about 'investment in public transport' when you live in a densely populated conurbation and are trying to work out how to get 20 million 9-5 worker drones into, out of or around the middle of the urban jungle every day, but for the rest of us, it's a ridiculous concept.
As a general rule, in most situations, public transport gets you from somewhere you aren't, to somewhere you don't want to go, at a time you don't want to travel, via a route that only a drunken lemur would contemplate, very slowly, in great discomfort, in the company of people you'd normally cross the street to avoid. And rapes your wallet in the process. Much the same can be said of freight on the railway, except that the problems associated with shifting freight by rail apply even more acutely in London than they do elsewhere.
You want to put freight on the railways, but why rail? Why not the canals? Much more environmentally friendly, and they were there first!
The answer, of course, is that railways killed canals the way and for the same reasons that road haulage killed the railways. Rail was more flexible, had greater capacity and by the time rail came on stream the canals were in the wrong places. Road haulage didn't take freight off the rails because rail was knobbled! There are certain things that rail still does better than road. Moving millions of tons of coal from a pit that is never going to move to a power station that isn't going anywhere either? Brilliant. Except that we don't have many coal-fired power stations any more. Or many pits, come to think of it. A railway is as close as you can get to a pipeline for coal, and we are still building pipelines today for oil and gas, so where we are still producing and consuming coal it still has a role...
Hwever, moving plasma tellies from any one of a hundred places to any one of ten thousand retail outlets, via a distribution centre that is nothing more than a giant shed with a loading dock on and that could move somewhere a hundred miles away next week if it was a more convenient location... no. Railways are bollocks for that.
Anyway, even if they did still go to all the right places, our railways were mostly built a hundred years ago or more. And then people clustered around them, ensuring that they have no space to expand 'in line' anyway, plus even if they could expand, the alignment, tunnel clearances etc would be bollocks for modern channel-tunnel/TGV style high speed stock anyway. Hence the British dalliance with various Heath-Robinson tilting trains over the years - trying to travel quickly over victorian permanent way. They are essentially operating at capacity on the existing infrastructure already.
So 'better freight railway' is an oxymoron, and if you want 'better passenger railways', you'd need to build them from scratch. And given our national track record (boom boom) on building transport infrastructure, plus how expensive modern railway is per mile, plus what it has to compete with, plus what you would have to knock down to build it, plus how many Swampys you'd need to drag out of how many trees, it would be cripplingly expensive for everybody, and who would benefit?
Let's look at me. The shagged out main line between here and Paddington gives me a 4 hour trundle in to London, when it doesn't shit itself, and they charge me like a wounded rhino for the privilege. The bike is both a faster and a cheaper way to travel! The entire line is both a monument to the brilliance & ingenuity of Isombard Kingdom Brunel, and a decaying relic at the same time. So, you want to give me a railway I want to use in preference to the M4? Great. That will be a brand new 250 mile long high speed rail line, then, complete with new cuttings, embankments and tunnels blasted through mountains, new bridges and viaducts, a new Severn tunnel, great swathes cut through all the cities of South Wales including Cardiff & Swansea, Bristol, Bath, Swindon, Reading etc. Plus the hundreds of sexy new high speed supertrains. And now (or in 2030 when it opens, anyway) you can get to London from here in an hour. Of course if you live in Aberaeron you still have two hour's drive over shit roads before you get to the station in Carmarthen, but hey... and then to pay for it all, the operator either charges £500 a ticket (and runs empty trains then goes bust and requires bailing out by the taxpayer), or I ask you to subsidise my ticket through your sky-high taxes. Which you have no choice but to pay so that I can afford a rail ticket, while wondering why the roads round where you live are full of potholes and your bypass was cancelled.
Quote:
Example? The government OKs heavier trucks on the road when the original plan was to get freight on the trains and off the roads.
That would be 'a plan' in the '5 year' sense, then. Obviously two twenty-four tonne trucks trundling across the country are better than one forty-eight tonner because... err...
See also earlier point about compatibility of rail freight with modern distribution patterns. i.e. None.
-------------------- Ken Haylock
http://www.cix.co.uk/~kwh
"Ride what you like, how you like, as often as you like; but always take responsibilty for your actions." - Anonymous Zen Guru
"Obviously all I'll care about is if it's good for wheelies (i.e. fluffs up my meagre skills), and what free gift they give on the launch." - Anonymous Moto-Journalism Guru
|
FastBikerBoy
old hand
Reged: 08/11/2006
Posts: 1180
Loc: Norfolk, UK - Police State
|
|
Just to expand on your excellent summation on the public transport system, those living in cities will wonder what's wrong with it while those of us 'in the cuntry' will know exactly what you're talking about.
Before I was lucky enough to live walking distance from work I had a journey of 53 miles. That equated to about an hour on busy-ish dual carriageways by car, a little less via the twisties on the bike, or much quicker via bike and dual carriageway.
On the one occasion due to brilliant forward planning of my servicing schedule I was going to be without bike or car and thought "Great I can try the public transport". For a one way journey this was going to involve one taxi to get me to the station (or an 8 mile walk/pushbike ride) 2 trains and either a taxi or 1.5 mile walk at the other end taking just over 2 1/2 hours at a cost of £30. Throw buses into the equation and I saved just over £12 but added 1 1/2 hours to the journey time.
A return journey wasn't going to happen at all because I had the audacity to finish work after 10pm so my choices were not go home, taxi, or walk. The reason for me to get out of my car/off bike and use public transport is?
So to all the "use public transport brigade" try living further than 5 miles from your local town and see what a great 'public' transport system we (don't) have.
Until that problem is resolved, which let's face it isn't going to happen, it's good old bike or car, or in my case a good wank.... er I mean walk
-------------------- FBB
|
monkiboi
old hand
Reged: 11/11/2006
Posts: 874
|
|
The cost of owning a car has gone up considerably. If the govs idea of changing the tax bracket for cars in 2010 goes ahead then that £425 tax for my family MPV and at the moment about £90 to fill it up. As for getting to work, public transport just isn't an option for me. We work 24/7, 363 days a year. You should try getting a bus or train to get to work for 6 i the morning on a sunday or bank holiday. Never gonna happen. And a fter a 12 hour shift of fixing those annoying lorries that get your food into the shops, so that you can go and buy a pint of milk on a sunday morning (and anything else that you couldn't get between monday and friday), the last thing I want to do is wait for a train or bus to get me home. It's only 14 miles from home to work but it is a real pain by train. I have to go 3 stops then change trains, the station at the work end is miles from where I work, so a bus is the called for. Think I'll stick with my bike. 15 to 20 mins and I'm home! And don't even get me started on the difference between lorries and trains for cargo!!
-------------------- Only ride as fast as your guardian angel can fly!
I've been wondering, can a tortoise swim?
Not according to 118118!! (can someone lend me a tortoise to see if they're right?)
|
idiotsavant
addict
Reged: 01/11/2006
Posts: 513
|
|
Avoiding a debate by saying 'Private Eye has been done for libel' is pathetic. Tell me which news organ hasn't been taken to court by someone or something. And PE's hit ratio is way higher than most. I reckon the daily papers rip off PE stories a lot of the time. Still, if you're not sure about the facts, best just slag it off, eh Chappers?
As for the problems with the rail network, of course, as it stands at the moment, it's a near shambles. But it's a lack of vision and political will, not that it would be impossible.
Have you seen the log-jams of massive trucks that rumble up from the Channel-North sea ports? Why not build (invest!) in a freight rail network? An electric one! Country-wide! A 'joined-up' transport system?
Why not? Because it would need state (government) planning and control and we've given up on that since Thatcher. The government pays more total subsidy now to the rail franchise companies than it did to 'prop up' British Rail when it was state owned. And at least back then the cash wasn't going straight to pay shareholders dividends. And the service was better!
How about a windfall tax on Oil companies to pay for a massive state-controlled rail network? It'd create jobs in construction and on the new rail system and there would be less traffic on the roads. Everyone's a winner. (Except the oil companies, but they can afford it)
In fact, fuck it, nationalise the oil companies and let's see the people (us) benefit from oil reserves in our own fucking country. Ooops...that's unthinkable these days.
-------------------- Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
|
KennyP
addict
Reged: 16/11/2006
Posts: 645
Loc: Croydon via Brussels and Glasg...
|
|
Quote:
Can you explain further how the cost of car travel has decreased by 10% when road tax is higher, fuel prices are higher and the cost of cars has risen???
All i know is that where i live petrol is now £1.30 a litre, compared to £1.01 just before chrismas..
I think its worked out in terms of wage rises, the cost of living in other areas and other economic factors (house prices, rent). All of those have risen more than the overall cost of owning a car.
Petrol price rises like the one you describe haven't got too much to do with the government as far as I understand it. More to do with commodities brokers buying pieces of paper, banking on oil prices going up - and making them go up in the process. God bless the free market. Yeah, right.
-------------------- kenny_pryde@ipcmedia.com
"There are three sides to every story. Yours. Mine. And the truth." Robert Evans.
Waste more time here http://uk.youtube.com/SuperBikeMag
|
chappers
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 31/12/2006
Posts: 5379
Loc: Mind your own business
|
|
I think you'll find it's more a case that I don't nor ever have taken PE seriously and infact put little store in many news publications. If you are gullible enough to believe everything you read fine I'm not bothered. As for the cost of motoring you'd have to be blind or plain stupid to think it's not gone up, I can currently afford it altho have had to make some cutbacks and am considering alternatives (LPG top of my list)sadly most alternatives I've found Have just as big an environmental impact IMO, many of these alternative plant based fuels require vast quantities of agricultural land to be used which in turn has a negative impact on food supplies and once grown require massive amounts of energy to convert to viable fuels which even then aren't as efficient as traditional fuels. I've looked into bio-diesel from cooking oil but I'm not convinced that it's as good as it's made out to be and may be detrimental atho I'm still checking it out. Fact I'm currently spending £60+ a week extra in fuel over 2 years ago for all vehicles Why? again because the government have increased fuel duty out all all proportion with the invention of using our cars less it hasn't worked we just pay more that's all. Where does that extra duty go? into research for alternative fuels etc? Yea bollocks it does. When I'm not sat on my arse with a poxy broken ankle I'm constantly travelling around visiting clients and going to and from offices for work believe it or not. I counter the increase buy trying to earn more but it's been getting harder recently. I have no recent experience of public transport nor do I intend to, Why? because the level of service would embarrass many third world countries in a way supporting your argument in that case. Another clear increase is the weekly shopping bill which is now approximately £30-40 more a week (there are a lot of us currently seven in the household) You could argue that we could get a smaller car fair enough you find me a car that will carry a min of seven people and be capable of legally towing 2500k, don't try to suggest we get rid of horses or bikes we work hard for our money and I'm fucked if I'm going to stop doing things I enjoy with my money that we have worked hard for further more I don't tend to fly which burns vast quantities of fuel. Further more many other Hard working people and companies that offer transport currently have their backs against the wall and are finding themselves trying to compete with foreign companies, try and convince them that cost are lower than in the past. If you are really that concerned why don't you do your own research rather than relying on an article in a half arsed comic edited by a pompous prick. Lets be honest there is no point in blaming Tories Labour nor any other party for higher fuel duties they are all as bad as each other personally I liked Maggie she looked after the forces emergency and armed and was a supporter of free enterprise initially helping new businesses, altho like all people in power it all went to her head IMO. Now if you don't mind I have much more pressing matters to concern myself with like which rearset to fit first and weather to buy SS or Titanium system for my bike or shall I just buy loads of tyres and fuel so I can burn them up on trackdays when i'm fit and still not cause as much pollution in a year as a jet taking off for a holiday. I've had good advice on Titanium for an exhaust and it will knock about 6 kilos off the bike what do you think.
|
immy
old hand
Reged: 09/11/2006
Posts: 961
Loc: Planet Zok
|
|
Buy a bicycle wiv a child seat-get the same for the wife(but with a large basket at the front)-and bingo! Family outing for the day at no cost to the enviroment- We should all ride bicycles of motorbikes IMO
-------------------- Its not fate itself that is so frightening
Its the expectation of fate that frightens
|
chappers
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 31/12/2006
Posts: 5379
Loc: Mind your own business
|
|
Yea and if I fitted a tow bar we'd be away. Or better still I could harness the horses and they could tow their own horsebox.
|
idiotsavant
addict
Reged: 01/11/2006
Posts: 513
|
|
Quote:
I think you'll find it's more a case that I don't nor ever have taken PE seriously and infact put little store in many news publications. If you are gullible enough to believe everything you read fine I'm not bothered. As for the cost of motoring you'd have to be blind or plain stupid to think it's not gone up
You're not winning this one, are you Chappers? Where did I say I believed everything I read?
And, let's not let facts get in the way of bias, prejudice or 'common sense' either eh? Here's some stats which suggest that the government's impact on fuel prices might not be as direct as some imagine. If fuel duty revenues have remained fairly stable (as these numbers suggest) yet we've got more and more cars on the road over the same period, who is making the money?
Fuel duties collected by Customs in 2002-2003 amounted to £22.1 billion, and they are predicted to amount to £22.8 billion in 2003-2004 and £24.4 billion in 2004-2005. That amounts to 20.33 per cent, 19.59 per cent and 20.07 per cent of HM Customs' total revenues for those years.
Statistics 1 and 2: (Source: HM Treasury, "Budget Report 2004")
-------------------- Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
|
chappers
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 31/12/2006
Posts: 5379
Loc: Mind your own business
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think you'll find it's more a case that I don't nor ever have taken PE seriously and infact put little store in many news publications. If you are gullible enough to believe everything you read fine I'm not bothered. As for the cost of motoring you'd have to be blind or plain stupid to think it's not gone up
You're not winning this one, are you Chappers? Where did I say I believed everything I read?
And, let's not let facts get in the way of bias, prejudice or 'common sense' either eh? Here's some stats which suggest that the government's impact on fuel prices might not be as direct as some imagine. If fuel duty revenues have remained fairly stable (as these numbers suggest) yet we've got more and more cars on the road over the same period, who is making the money?
Fuel duties collected by Customs in 2002-2003 amounted to £22.1 billion, and they are predicted to amount to £22.8 billion in 2003-2004 and £24.4 billion in 2004-2005. That amounts to 20.33 per cent, 19.59 per cent and 20.07 per cent of HM Customs' total revenues for those years.
Statistics 1 and 2: (Source: HM Treasury, "Budget Report 2004")
So you are happy to quote an article you don't believe then? Where did I state you believed every thing you read i just inplied your are Gullible, I'm guessing your are trolling with me at the mo so sorry you lose in that case you aren't going to draw me in. As for the Projected Revenue figures I'd like to have your view of money if you consider 2.3 billion a small increase £2300,000,000 with a population of just under 61,000,000 that is a significant sum to me. In real terms my motoring cost have gone up you can quote all the figures you want that's the fact. I have never just blamed the government for rising fuel prices but you can't ignore just under7 0% duty on fuel shown in the chart. http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html. Like I said earlier I have better things to concern myself with like bits for my bike rather than a troll looking for an argument. Have a nice day .
Edited by chappers (12/06/2008 12:01)
|
Chez
enthusiast
Reged: 16/10/2007
Posts: 278
Loc: Gloucestershire
|
|
Well Said chappers.....
-------------------- "Racing is life... everything before and after is just waiting." Steve McQueen
|
KwH
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1714
Loc: Carmarthen, Dyfed
|
|
Quote:
As for the problems with the rail network, of course, as it stands at the moment, it's a near shambles. But it's a lack of vision and political will, not that it would be impossible.
These days rail is competing with domestic air travel and not with the car (and/or bike in my case).
For short journeys from pretty much anywhere that isn't within half a mile of a railway station, or to pretty much anywhere else that isn't within half a mile of a railway station, rail is invariably a shit way to travel. This is why trains work for getting the sardine-packed masses into and out of London for work and are cock all use for 99% of e.g. shopping trips etc. Any state planner who wanted to force me to do my shopping by train (presumably 'for the glory of the revolution') would need a fucking big cattle prod. Any democratic government that tried to impose that kind of thing would be out on its arse at the first opportunity available.
So for passengers you need your rail to compete with domestic air travel for the relatively long haul city-hopper trips. When Air Wales started flying to London, while I was working up in town (doing consultancy for Railtrack/Network Rail, ironically) I jumped on it like a shot - my five and a half hour plus each way weekly train commute (or four hour bike commute) turned into about an hour in a plane, half an hour of check-in and similar pointless faffing about and half an hour in a taxi from London City to the airport. It really was a no brainer! If I needed to do any work in Glasgow, I'd be happy to ride a hundred miles to Bristol to catch a plane, rather than try to get their by rail or road. Trains have to be like that if they want to compete. The chunnel rail link really does that if you want to go to Brussels. As it is, I live within (long) walking distance of Carmarthen station, and even if I'm going into London, unless I really need to wear a suit (ugh), or decide to pay for a first class ticket and can earn the money back by working on the train to pay for it, I'll take the bike every time because it's faster, cheaper, more reliable and goes when I want it to not when I'm told.
So to get a useful passenger railway to Glasgow, you'd need to build something like the Channel Tunnel Rail Link between London and Glasgow, but because people like me won't travel to Glasgow via London, you also need a 'western' link, from say Bristol to Scotland. And you need spurs off to Newcastle and Leeds and Sheffield, obviously. And Birmingham and Manchester in fact.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link cost £74 million per mile to build [Source: Hansard 16 Jul 2004 : Column 1385W].
I'll leave you to tot up on your fingers and toes what building a useful high speed rail network would cost at £74 million per mile. Or, given how long the CTRL took to build, how long it would be before anybody to take a train to Glasgow from anywhere. Merely one line from London to Glasgow would be 400 miles and about £30 billion pounds minimum. Or an average of about £1,200 plus collection costs from every income tax payer in Britain. And again judging by CTRL, the first train (and that bill doesn't include any trains, of course - add them on top) would run in about 20 years time if you were lucky.
So no, it's not 'a lack of vision and political will', it's basic economics!
Quote:
Have you seen the log-jams of massive trucks that rumble up from the Channel-North sea ports? Why not build (invest!) in a freight rail network? An electric one! Country-wide! A 'joined-up' transport system?
What would it join up?
All those trucks tend to arrive in the UK at different channel ports, use the motorway network to get around the country, and then bomb-burst off to different destinations. In addition, if a landslide blocks the M42 for a fortnight, the lorries will travel via the M1 for the duration until they clear it, and you won't get bread riots in Newcastle due to the food trains not arriving.
Given that nothing on those trucks either comes from, or is going to the same place, your expensive rail link just means that there are more road miles needed than there were before to distribute the goods that the state planned railway has taken to entirely the wrong place...
So perhaps the best you could possibly hope to do is save a bit of fuel by opening a Ro/Ro railway with Chunnel style lorry trains on and giving some of the trucks and their drivers a bit of a lift to save them doing the long motorway leg up to the North.
Oh look...
http://www.central-railway.co.uk/pages
I know about this because I used to live 30 metres from the railway line they wanted to uprade in High Wycombe, and I thought it would be a great idea as long as I didn't have to pay for it, since it would hopefully reduce the number of trucks on the motorways a bit. However, you would not believe the number of NIMBY nutters who knocked on my door every ten minutes asking me to sign petitions condemning the whole project. There was a group every couple of miles along the entire route of the line, objecting to it on every ground possible and many that weren't, ensuring that the whole thing would have been bound up in public enquiries for at least the next 30 years. And that's just upgrading an existing line and running more/taller/longer trains on it. Just Google for 'Central Railways' and look at all the antis and protest group websites you still get now, even two years after they apparently worked out that actually the whole idea was financially non-viable and gave up...
Quote:
Why not? Because it would need state (government) planning and control and we've given up on that since Thatcher.
Ah, state planning. That worked so well in the Eastern Bloc didn't it. I've no idea why we donb't do more of it. Mmmm... state planning... sounds like.... an enormous cock-up that we have to pay for whether we want to or not, and which we may then be forced to live with whether it is any use or not so that the government can save face...
Quote:
The government pays more total subsidy now to the rail franchise companies than it did to 'prop up' British Rail when it was state owned.
Privatisation was badly ballsed up, no doubt. I could write a book about that, but several other people already have, so I suggest you read one. And no, not some wank pamphlet written by Dave Spart that you might have borrowed from Socialist Book Club, a proper analysis of the issues...
Quote:
And at least back then the cash wasn't going straight to pay shareholders dividends.
That would be socialist bollocks, obviously. Dividends are generally the reason why people buy shares, and share capital is where the money comes from to set up and run a railway. The alternative 'state planned' Nirvana involves people making free with other people's money, without being directly accountable to them.
Quote:
And the service was better!
Was it bollocks!
Quote:
How about a windfall tax on Oil companies to pay for a massive state-controlled rail network?
Oh yes, let's tuck a small number of major corporates up with a 'windfall tax' of £120 billion pounds...
Yes, that'll really work. Hang on, why has every other multinational company that makes any kind of profit delisted from the stock exchange and ceased all UK operations overnight? Why has the city of London done a moonlight flit to Frankfurt? Why are the lights going out? Why don't we have that cheque for £120 billion already? Why...?
Quote:
It'd create jobs in construction and on the new rail system and there would be less traffic on the roads. Everyone's a winner. (Except the oil companies, but they can afford it)
There would be less traffic everywhere due to the crushing poverty and the economic depression that your brilliant economic strategy for funding a high speed rail network had caused.
Quote:
In fact, fuck it, nationalise the oil companies and let's see the people (us) benefit from oil reserves in our own fucking country. Ooops...that's unthinkable these days.
Ah, the Hugo Chavez approach to economic management... if your Bureau of State Oil Production works as well as British Rail, British Steel, British Coal and British Leyland used to, then there will be precious little oil, no exploration, the supply will be hideously unreliable due to weekly strikes, it will cost more to extract than it sells for, and your car will shit itelf every couple of years due to the wank quality, but at least it will be state owned, eh?
-------------------- Ken Haylock
http://www.cix.co.uk/~kwh
"Ride what you like, how you like, as often as you like; but always take responsibilty for your actions." - Anonymous Zen Guru
"Obviously all I'll care about is if it's good for wheelies (i.e. fluffs up my meagre skills), and what free gift they give on the launch." - Anonymous Moto-Journalism Guru
|
xxrider
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/11/2006
Posts: 2267
Loc: Somewhere over the rainbow.......
|
|
Quote:
How about a windfall tax on Oil companies to pay for a massive state-controlled rail network? It'd create jobs in construction and on the new rail system and there would be less traffic on the roads. Everyone's a winner. (Except the oil companies, but they can afford it)
May I refer the honourable member to my previous answer.
Regardless of fuel duty (which is a seperate issue) oil prices are high. Because demand is greater than it has ever been, and supply isn't. Because at the time when we needed oil companies to be investing in cheaper ways to extract/refine it, and easier ways to find it, they just didn't have the profits to be able to afford to do so. So now that they have, let's NOT take away those profits with a huge windfall tax, eh? What do you think their reaction would be? We'd ultimately be paying even MORE per litre than we do now. Instead, encourage them to invest in research (no, NOT green fuels and alternative power sources), so that they can find, extract and refine better, and help redress the supply/demand imbalance. The more there is, and the cheaper it is to produce, the cheaper it'll be to buy.
Railways? As a realistic freight/goods transport system? Dead in the water. Ken's already mentioned that canals died because rail was more efficient. Now the same can be said for railways and roads.
-------------------- The simplest questions are the most profound. Where were you born? Where is your home? Where are you going? What are you doing? Think about these once in a while and watch your answers change.
|
idiotsavant
addict
Reged: 01/11/2006
Posts: 513
|
|
Ken. Not sure what you are proposing as an alternative. The idea that state planning doesn't work and is rubbish maybe true. But you seem to suggest that 'the system' we have now is working – and it isn't really.
All those objections about the cost of building stuff are 'merely' objections, you're not seriously saying that major projects shouldn't be undertaken because of NIMBYs?
As for the Dave Spart insults, give me some credit. There are state run railways – France for one – which work reasonably well.
Overall, the arguments about 'socialist utopia' are a bit lazy eh? I find it amazing that simply by using the 'S' word, you are implying I'm insane – a measure of how low debate in this country has fallen in 15 years.
Don't touch the oil companies because they'll run off? My god, should we stifle debate and not even consider options for fear of upsetting big business?
If the popular will is there to change things, I still believe its possible. But I'm less confident as years pass. And you should get out more. Out of Wales. Out of the house. Out from in front of your computer. Maybe meet a nice lady.
And Chappers? Piss off. I reckon you've fallen on your head on an MX track once too often.
-------------------- Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
|
|
What is SuperBike?
SuperBike is an irreverent, humorous and massively informative magazine for all kinds of bikers. The staff has decades of testing and riding experience and are all still passionate about bikes. Biking is – or should be – great fun as well as a huge thrill.
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: gbailey, KennyP, adowds
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
Mark-up is enabled
|
Rating:
Topic views: 2173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|