23-Dec-2006
On this day in History : 1964: Beeching to leave British Railways
Oh Doctor Beeching.........
Beeching presided as Chairman of the British Railways Board from 1961 and oversaw the closure of thousands of miles of rail infrastructure.
Following the publication of his report "The Reshaping of British Railways" in 1963, more than 8,000 miles (12,875 km) of track and 2,000 stations were closed at a cost of nearly 70,000 jobs.
The cuts were controversial at the time, as was his exit; it has never been clear whether he resigned or was in fact sacked.
Public transport in the UK is a disgrace.
A few years ago, I lived in the South East suburbs of London....if I wanted to travel to the West by rail, the only way to accomplish that was to travel all the way into London and then back out again like the spokes of a bicycle.
If ever people are to get out of their cars, it is vital that serious investment is made towards public transport to make it convenient and affordable. Government must create the commercial environment to enable a holistic UK transport strategy inmcluding appropriate subsidies or capital investment....even if it does mean holding it as a Nationlised industry. The major investments required today make it impractical to have a via
Punishing a motorist by taxation is not the way to generate revenue to compensate for years of under-investment apparently kicked off by Beeching's reforms.
Link
Beeching presided as Chairman of the British Railways Board from 1961 and oversaw the closure of thousands of miles of rail infrastructure.
Following the publication of his report "The Reshaping of British Railways" in 1963, more than 8,000 miles (12,875 km) of track and 2,000 stations were closed at a cost of nearly 70,000 jobs.
The cuts were controversial at the time, as was his exit; it has never been clear whether he resigned or was in fact sacked.
Public transport in the UK is a disgrace.
A few years ago, I lived in the South East suburbs of London....if I wanted to travel to the West by rail, the only way to accomplish that was to travel all the way into London and then back out again like the spokes of a bicycle.
If ever people are to get out of their cars, it is vital that serious investment is made towards public transport to make it convenient and affordable. Government must create the commercial environment to enable a holistic UK transport strategy inmcluding appropriate subsidies or capital investment....even if it does mean holding it as a Nationlised industry. The major investments required today make it impractical to have a via
Punishing a motorist by taxation is not the way to generate revenue to compensate for years of under-investment apparently kicked off by Beeching's reforms.
Labels: environment, Public Transport, taxes, This Day in History
Link
18-Dec-2006
Let's starve the jobless into submission whilst punishing those who invest
This has to be one of the craziest ideas that I have ever heard.
Whilst I appreciate that it is not a pleasant statistic to report that 10% of the currently unemployed have relied upon benefits for at least 6 of the last 7 years, cutting their benefits is not actually going to help them into work.
Let's be realistic here - getting a job is a two way street - granted, the jobseeker has to do all that he can to market himself to get a job, but on the other side of the job market is the employer. I can't see employers rushing to employ someone who has been out of work for 6 of the last 7 years, can you?
Don't misunderstand me....I don't say that all is well with the benefits system. There have been too many reports of people with families so large that it does not make economic sense for them to go back to work, especially if they can get the council to knock two houses together to keep the family in one home.
I agree that reform has to take place, especially to subsidise risks that employers may take and to create an environment where it does make financial sense to go out to work, but let's remember the historic failures of YTS (Youth Training Scheme) that took youngsters into low paid jobs and allowed employers to operate their businesses on a subsidy with poor employment and training opportunities.
But, if the Government is on a roll looking at reforming the welfare state.....perhaps it should also look to readdress some injustices where people invest in their future, only to be penalised.
Three things come to my mind as an inequality when I choose to buy my home rather than rent.
1. If I fall unemployed when buying my own home, all I get paid is the interest on my mortgage, whereas if renting, I can claim housing benefit that may pay close to the full monthly rental. If I want to protect my mortgage payments, I am forced to take out an expensive insurance policy. Why such inequality?
2. If I have invested in buying a property and I require respite care in later life, my house can be taken away from me to contribute to the costs of it. Yet if I spend all my cash whilst healthy, the Welfare Stete will pick up the tab.
3. When I die, if I have invested in any way and especially in my home, my estate will be subject to inheritance tax even if my estate is fairly modest. Tax is at 40%, yet if I blow it during my lifetime, the tax would only be payable at 17.5% VAT - again, where is the equality.
These three points alone are enough to make someone say "why bother buying my house". Yet there is still something very special about saying that the money is being invested for yourself rather than the landlord. But it is still immoral for the government (and prior governments) to regard homeowners as wealthier and more able to take the extra taxes just because they have been thriftier and more sensible than those who chose to rent.
Yes......the benefits and taxation system in this country is in urgent need of reform, but let's not do it in a random way, picking off little bits and pieces for soundbites. Let's make it fair and transparent throughout the whole system.
The first party to cut through all this and come up with radical and equitable proposals will be the one that will truly appeal to the middle-upper classes (and me!!).
Link
Whilst I appreciate that it is not a pleasant statistic to report that 10% of the currently unemployed have relied upon benefits for at least 6 of the last 7 years, cutting their benefits is not actually going to help them into work.
Let's be realistic here - getting a job is a two way street - granted, the jobseeker has to do all that he can to market himself to get a job, but on the other side of the job market is the employer. I can't see employers rushing to employ someone who has been out of work for 6 of the last 7 years, can you?
Don't misunderstand me....I don't say that all is well with the benefits system. There have been too many reports of people with families so large that it does not make economic sense for them to go back to work, especially if they can get the council to knock two houses together to keep the family in one home.
I agree that reform has to take place, especially to subsidise risks that employers may take and to create an environment where it does make financial sense to go out to work, but let's remember the historic failures of YTS (Youth Training Scheme) that took youngsters into low paid jobs and allowed employers to operate their businesses on a subsidy with poor employment and training opportunities.
But, if the Government is on a roll looking at reforming the welfare state.....perhaps it should also look to readdress some injustices where people invest in their future, only to be penalised.
Three things come to my mind as an inequality when I choose to buy my home rather than rent.
1. If I fall unemployed when buying my own home, all I get paid is the interest on my mortgage, whereas if renting, I can claim housing benefit that may pay close to the full monthly rental. If I want to protect my mortgage payments, I am forced to take out an expensive insurance policy. Why such inequality?
2. If I have invested in buying a property and I require respite care in later life, my house can be taken away from me to contribute to the costs of it. Yet if I spend all my cash whilst healthy, the Welfare Stete will pick up the tab.
3. When I die, if I have invested in any way and especially in my home, my estate will be subject to inheritance tax even if my estate is fairly modest. Tax is at 40%, yet if I blow it during my lifetime, the tax would only be payable at 17.5% VAT - again, where is the equality.
These three points alone are enough to make someone say "why bother buying my house". Yet there is still something very special about saying that the money is being invested for yourself rather than the landlord. But it is still immoral for the government (and prior governments) to regard homeowners as wealthier and more able to take the extra taxes just because they have been thriftier and more sensible than those who chose to rent.
Yes......the benefits and taxation system in this country is in urgent need of reform, but let's not do it in a random way, picking off little bits and pieces for soundbites. Let's make it fair and transparent throughout the whole system.
The first party to cut through all this and come up with radical and equitable proposals will be the one that will truly appeal to the middle-upper classes (and me!!).
Labels: Inheritance Tax, taxes, welfare
Link
03-Dec-2006
Car CO2 emissions - Carbon offsetting
I asked in an earlier post for thoughts about how you would favour contributing to projects that would offest your vehicles carbon footprint.
Do you trust Government to put taxes where intended or would you trust a Third Party more?
Would you prefer pay as you go reflecting the miles that you travel or would you prefer a fixed annual sum?
Or maybe you would choose to pay nothing?
What would be your own favoured approach?
I have added a poll to this article. Please take the time to vote and perhaps share your reasons for voting that way.
Thanks,
David Cameron
Update 05 Dec. I have taken the poll down which was hosted at http://www.free-website-polls.com. I realised this morning that their site had been hacked - their pages all bear extra annotation "Hacked By Narcoticxs contact : admin@sanalkatil.org".
From my own virus-checking, I have no reason to believe that there is necessarily any risk to visitors/pollsters, but I want to play safe. I will NOT put polls back up until I have done more background checks in future.
Do you trust Government to put taxes where intended or would you trust a Third Party more?
Would you prefer pay as you go reflecting the miles that you travel or would you prefer a fixed annual sum?
Or maybe you would choose to pay nothing?
What would be your own favoured approach?
I have added a poll to this article. Please take the time to vote and perhaps share your reasons for voting that way.
Thanks,
David Cameron
Update 05 Dec. I have taken the poll down which was hosted at http://www.free-website-polls.com. I realised this morning that their site had been hacked - their pages all bear extra annotation "Hacked By Narcoticxs contact : admin@sanalkatil.org".
From my own virus-checking, I have no reason to believe that there is necessarily any risk to visitors/pollsters, but I want to play safe. I will NOT put polls back up until I have done more background checks in future.
Labels: Carbon neutral, carbon offsetting, CO2, emissions, Narcoticxs, target neutral, taxes
19-Nov-2006
It's a Rubbish Tax and an even more Rubbish Idea
What an insane idea to be taxing us all for the amount of refuse we don't recycle.
I want to recycle, but the instructions as to what we can and can't recycle are a mess - and there is no joined up government on this. In one area a fruit juice carton may be recyclable, yet in the next county they don't have a contract in place for that, so it must go into landfill.
If one authority can put a contract in place, then why can't all?
My parents have very clear instructions relating to plastics PET numbers and making it clear what they can put in for recycling. I have basic instructions only that leave me scratching my head.
I could be hung out to dry either way - if I contaminate my recycling bins, then I will be fined and if I err on the side of caution and put it in my ordinary bin, then under ideas under review, I will have to pay extra to take it away!! Either way, I pay for something I am already paying for!!
And what about the Retail world? The things I throw away don't just land mysteriously at my house - they are sold to me and with ridiculous amounts of packaging - why does a swede need to be vacuum wrapped in polythene? Why do manufacturers encase their products in that plastic cage that is bloody impossible to open and turns into an instrument of torture when you try and squeeze your fingers in to extracate the product from the biggest hole that you dared make without cutting through the instructions\CD\warranty document or whatever else is in it. What are they doing? - I see no evidence of anything changing.
So we end up with all this rubbish that is going to cost us an arm and a leg in fines or fees to dispose of - those that don't want to pay will still not pay and fly tipping will increase. Meantime those of us that do pay will end up sharing their charges.
Labels: Green, recycling, rubbish, taxes
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]