Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mega

Labour Dumps Road Priceing

Recommended Posts

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/241057/

Some say because its so close to an election, but frankly its more likely that:-

A. They don't have the cash to lay out the infarsturucture

B. Nor has anyone else

C. Eletric car are 20 years off becoming mainstream

Mike

A) They don't need any

B) A "box in the car" system won't cost much to roll out. It will however take 2-3 years to develop properly, by which time there will be money available.

C) ISTM that there will be a greater need for road pricing as taxing electricity used by cars is going to be difficult

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/241057/

Some say because its so close to an election, but frankly its more likely that:-

A. They don't have the cash to lay out the infarsturucture

B. Nor has anyone else

C. Eletric car are 20 years off becoming mainstream

Mike

oh no they haven't!!!!!

just because it is now not being pushed so blatantly by the politicians,it'll still be more covertly implemented.

I did see a little snippet on telly about volvo's new laser-guided autopilot car,which means you can sit back and stew after a skinful in the bar,and not get done for drink-driving....because you ain't driving.

of course such a system will need to know all the information on your whereabouts,goings and doings in order to drive you home....and the pay-per mile stuff can be conveniently dumped onto fuel(because it's the needing to know where you are that's important)...add a little incentive like getting rid of the tax disc and it's job done.

you'll think you're getting a great deal!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the coming decade or two of austerity there will be less cars on the roads so demand management won't be an issue, that's all imho

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But asset management is not the point. Tax revenues are. If asset management were a point then public transport would be more available and (relatively) cheaper.

And the 80% tax we pay on petrol already has done nothing for access/asset management ... why would road pricing?

Aidanapword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But asset management is not the point. Tax revenues are. If asset management were a point then public transport would be more available and (relatively) cheaper.

And the 80% tax we pay on petrol already has done nothing for access/asset management ... why would road pricing?

Aidanapword

I didn't say asset management, I said demand management - what are you talking about? Do you not know the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
I did see a little snippet on telly about volvo's new laser-guided autopilot car,which means you can sit back and stew after a skinful in the bar,and not get done for drink-driving....because you ain't driving.

Err... that's called a taxi, mate ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semantics aside, management of public resources in private transport (or management of the utilisation thereof) through price-focussed tools is something the government have been engaging in (attempting!) for years ... or so they claim. I do wonder how much of it is simply another way of developing new government enterprise ...

Call it what you like: price manipulation is frequently justified on 'demand management' grounds.

I don't think the details of the words you chose make much difference: actions that are purported to be focussed on changing key economic decisions by wider society in the absence of alternatives in the medium (or even long term) are:

a) (at best) a farce

B) (at worst) a greedy drive for 'justified' government sprawl

The road to government legislation hell is paved with good intentions - or, at least, signposted with allegations of best interest ...

Call it 'Fred' for all I care. Demand for private transport is price inelastic for a raft of reasons - the lack of viable alternatives is just one. Anyone who purports that (further!) price manipulation in the private transport market is going to be an effective tool for anything other than furthering the interests and scale of a police/nanny state is being either very naive or disingenuous.

There, I used the words from the textbook ... happy now?

Aidanapword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
You missed out...

D. It would be stupendously unpopular.

Exactly why they should try and do it, just to see if it's actually possible to be less popular than Michael Foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Semantics aside, management of public resources in private transport (or management of the utilisation thereof) through price-focussed tools is something the government have been engaging in (attempting!) for years ... or so they claim. I do wonder how much of it is simply another way of developing new government enterprise ...

Call it what you like: price manipulation is frequently justified on 'demand management' grounds.

I don't think the details of the words you chose make much difference: actions that are purported to be focussed on changing key economic decisions by wider society in the absence of alternatives in the medium (or even long term) are:

a) (at best) a farce

B) (at worst) a greedy drive for 'justified' government sprawl

The road to government legislation hell is paved with good intentions - or, at least, signposted with allegations of best interest ...

Call it 'Fred' for all I care. Demand for private transport is price inelastic for a raft of reasons - the lack of viable alternatives is just one. Anyone who purports that (further!) price manipulation in the private transport market is going to be an effective tool for anything other than furthering the interests and scale of a police/nanny state is being either very naive or disingenuous.

There, I used the words from the textbook ... happy now?

Aidanapword

no - I think you're wrong but use lots of words to try and sound right. However, my apologies for confusing your original point. Demand management does work, to a degree, based on people being greedy and motivated by money, and a lot of transport IS discretionary - but I will have to agree to disagree as I couldn't be bothered arguing at length.

Back to the point of the thread tho, whether you or I am right on the efficacy of demand or asset pricing, I reckon, since we can anticipate transport use falling anyway during austerity, and govt have limited pricign power anyway in introducing new taxes (separate point) then the infrastructure investment might not pay for itself - considering the govt have no money right now anyway.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly why they should try and do it, just to see if it's actually possible to be less popular than Michael Foot.

I don't think they'll need any help in managing that. Blair's total vote haul in '05 was only 1m higher than Foot's in '83.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shame, that would have been a really popular manifesto pledge, they could have put a picture of one of the Milibands next to it, with a holier-than-thou smile.

They're still going ahead with logging all car movements on the trunk network :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/15/c...iberties.police

How long will it be before it becomes face recognition not number plates? Then how long before shops will use it to target customers who walk past their shop? Can you imagine it..... Your misses asking you why you keep getting mail from ann summers, or you get profiled for hanging around know trouble 'hot spots' and find you get harassed everywhere you go?

What have we done to this country? :(

It's all about tax, taking my hard earned money and spending it on things I dont give a ****** about. It's my money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
no - I think you're wrong but use lots of words to try and sound right. However, my apologies for confusing your original point. Demand management does work, to a degree, based on people being greedy and motivated by money, and a lot of transport IS discretionary - but I will have to agree to disagree as I couldn't be bothered arguing at length.

Maybe, but if 1m people need to get into a major conurbation for work at 8am then 1m need moving, public transport is incapable of taking up the slack even if they did succeed in pricing people off the roads. In the real world it would just make the prospect of working even more unpopular amongst marginal workers because such pricing is anti-egalitarian, obviously if you earn £150k a year you would actually favour all those lowly plebs being priced off the road. Labour should try and introduce this, as it would really kick their core support in the nuts, it would be like the 10p tax and VED muck ups on acid.

Freedom of travel and assembly is one of the basic tenets of a free society, that's precisely why prissy little environments and socialists hate cars so much, or because they believe the rest of the country is like London where you'd be insane to use a car given the proliferation of public transport and the hate filled police state targeting of motorists.

It's all ideological, good modern lefties see the individualism offered by the car as a anti-collectivist conspiracy straight out of the Futurist Manifesto. When Mrs Margaret cut the ribbon the M25 she said "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.", obviously the M25 and all the congestion has now become a Ballardian nightmare, but you get the point.

Anyway, it's nothing to do with the environment, it's politics, as ever. I wonder how quickly they'll forget about CO2 targets and agree to the building of a massive new fleet of coal plants once they find old people freezing to death because of £5k energy bills. It gets to a point where demand is inelastic and cannot be driven down any lower, a fixed amount of energy will always be needed to keep people warm and fed, once you start trying to tax beyond that level you have rationing, which means you're freezing people to death.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you earn £150k a year you would actually favour all those lowly plebs being priced off the road.

I dont earn anything like that but would be in favour of it.

Im not priced off the road, im off it cus of jams and congestion. I hardly ever drive anywhere for fun as its just not fun anymore, its arduous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no - I think you're wrong but use lots of words to try and sound right. However, my apologies for confusing your original point. Demand management does work, to a degree, based on people being greedy and motivated by money, and a lot of transport IS discretionary - but I will have to agree to disagree as I couldn't be bothered arguing at length.

Back to the point of the thread tho, whether you or I am right on the efficacy of demand or asset pricing, I reckon, since we can anticipate transport use falling anyway during austerity, and govt have limited pricign power anyway in introducing new taxes (separate point) then the infrastructure investment might not pay for itself - considering the govt have no money right now anyway.

Si,

OK ... thanks for your response.

Fair enough: yes, Demand management does work to a degree. Couple that with a healthy dose of reinforcing media splurge and we all get shepherded into marginal behaviour changes through marginal justification by marginally efficient and self-reinforcing government departments. It is that those government departments limp on well and truly beyond their sell-by dates that has me frustrated ... but that is off the point of this thread, yes. Whether the margins are far enough from current behaviour as to effect real social change is a big question.

But you must admit: the 80% tax we pay on petrol does very little for changing our driving habits. Why would a different tax be more or less effective anyway? Sorry ... that is still off the topic of this thread.

I would suggest the dump of such unpopular policy is *also* the dump of an unpopular policy around the time when the nuLabour camp cannot afford to drive unpopular policy through. I mean that above and beyond the current short term financing problems. Both the cost in money and the cost in votes, I mean.

I do suggest that the technology we have available to use today wouldn't necessarily mean huge capital investment in the physical parts of the system ... the investment would be required in the core software and data management and ownership questions. And the constant bickering of departments would drive any such software/systems management project(s) off into the realms of the NHS IT infrastructure. More NuLabour vote loses.

Here is an *idea* though - I do wonder how much water it will hold - the economic (and social) challenges ahead might drive (sorry!) some people to even further use of the roads. Train tickets are more expensive than a cheap car (at least in and around the M4/M40 corridor), the bus doesn't get you to work reliably enough (and you can't get have the flexibility to work late/long hours), people have to go further afield for work (and selling houses is not easy these days) ... or perhaps it will just get sooo bad that everyone literally packs in any hope of getting from the house to work in the mornings ...?

Aidanapword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont earn anything like that but would be in favour of it.

Im not priced off the road, im off it cus of jams and congestion. I hardly ever drive anywhere for fun as its just not fun anymore, its arduous.

Get a motorbike then. It's like being the queen, you don't have to que, speed limits are arbitrary, no number plate on the front so they cant track you and it's cheap. What are you waiting for? ;) Vroooooooooooooooom!

Edit to remove extra quote.

Edited by XswampyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
I dont earn anything like that but would be in favour of it.

Im not priced off the road, im off it cus of jams and congestion. I hardly ever drive anywhere for fun as its just not fun anymore, its arduous.

You could just claim it on expenses anyway ;)

There is a capacity problem and it's never tackled because of the lazy logic of "you cannot build you way out of congestion", I can see what they're getting at, that new capacity generates new demand, but it's perfectly possible to meet that demand, there are only a certain number of cars and people in the country. It may not be desirable, but it is logically possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get a motorbike then. It's like being the queen, you don't have to que, speed limits are arbitrary, no number plate on the front so they cant track you and it's cheap. What are you waiting for? ;) Vroooooooooooooooom!

Edit to remove extra quote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7918212.stm

... when they are used in a 'speed limits are arbitrary' *sometimes* you get jail time (and it does seem they can track you) ... isn't this why they get called donorcycles? Well, when they are ridden by people who don't think their actions through?

Aidanapword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Err... that's called a taxi, mate ;)

Bankers and MP Expenses have nothing on Taxi drivers. It's cheaper to run a Ferrari than get a Taxi to work every morning.

I don't have a solution because there isn't one - the private car is the cheapest most flexible means of transit until fuel costs increase twenty fold. I run a 330Ci and the cost is so small it's insignificant compared to the alternatives (admitidly it's a 2002 one so the purchase price was very low)

Don't try and hold up Taxi's as even part of the solution. A taxi costs more than several nights out.

Edited by impatient_mug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
Bankers and MP Expenses have nothing on Taxi drivers. It's cheaper to run a Ferrari than get a Taxi to work every morning.

I don't have a solution because there isn't one - the private car is the cheapest most flexible means of transit until fuel costs increase twenty fold. I run a 330Ci and the cost is so small it's insignificant compared to the alternatives (admitidly it's a 2002 one so the purchase price was very low)

Don't try and hold up Taxi's as even part of the solution. A taxi costs more than several nights out.

I'm not suggesting Taxi's are the answer, I was simply responding to a previous posters suggestion that in the future a "laser-guided autopilot car" will be able to drive you back when you're pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe, but if 1m people need to get into a major conurbation for work at 8am then 1m need moving, public transport is incapable of taking up the slack even if they did succeed in pricing people off the roads.

in the event of long term unemployment make that 800,000 people instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But asset management is not the point. Tax revenues are. If asset management were a point then public transport would be more available and (relatively) cheaper.

And the 80% tax we pay on petrol already has done nothing for access/asset management ... why would road pricing?

Aidanapword

The tax we pay on petrol is road priceing. The more you drive or the faster you drive or the bigger the car the more you pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Mrs Margaret cut the ribbon the M25 she said "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.",...

Really?

'Margaret Thatcher':

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

Misquotations
  • A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.
    • Attributed to her in Commons debates, 2003-07-02, column 407 and Commons debates, 2004-06-15 column 697. According to a letter to the Daily Telegraph by Alistair Cooke on 2 November 2006, this sentiment originated with Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life". In a letter published the next day, also in the Daily Telegraph, Hugo Vickers claims Loelia Ponsonby admitted to him that she had borrowed it from Brian Howard. There is no solid evidence that Margaret Thatcher ever quoted this statement with approval, or indeed shared the sentiment.

'Talk:Margaret Thatcher':

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Margaret_Thatcher

Bus "failure" quote

A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.

This is almost certainly apocryphal. It has been attributed to Thatcher on numerous occasions, but:

1) There is no definitive source for the quote

2) There is some disagreement on the exact phrasing, and even on the age given (some sources say 30 rather than 26)

3) The quote has been attributed to people other than Thatcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.