There are reports in the news that the EU wants to introduce a so called 'Tobin Tax', named after the economist who originally proposed it. Some also label it the Robin Hood tax in that in theory it takes from the rich and gives to the poor.
Sweden tried a version of this in 1984 but dropped it in 1991 as a disasterous experiment. It reduced share prices when implemented and decimated trading. After it's abolition, the trading market recovered.
So why do the EU want to implement it now? Simple, seventy percent of the financial services transactions in Europe take place in London which would therefore bear the brunt of the tax. The proposal comes not from the UK but from Germany and France. It would have far less effect in their countries and rather than going to help the poor and needy as the Robin Hood name would suggest the monies will go into a EU fund to support the Euro (of which the UK is not a part).
If the tax is not implemented across all the major world markets, traders will move to the markets which are not taxed. This would mean a massive exodus from London to other centres such as Hong Kong and New York. The major financial institutions are already global so it would be relatively painless for them to move, indeed I believe HSBC had already threatened to do so before the tax was proposed in the EU.
This country is not in the Euro, at present would not stand to benefit from being so, and is not responsible for the financial struggles of those that are. We have already bailed out Euro Zone countries with money we don't have and it is time we vetoed any further attacks on UK finances.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Electric Cars (2)
Recent discussions in the news and a Top Gear item have prompted me to post again on the subjetc of electric cars.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Supermarket Green Trickery Part Two
Previously in this blog I have discussed how supermarkets use environmental claims to enhance their image whilst in fact what they are doing benefits the supermarket more than the environment and also gives them a nice image with prospective customers.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Brussels Bureaucracy
From reading an article in the paper yesterday I get the feeling we are likely to be put under the Brussels thumb again. There are two caveats of course - first that you should never believe all you read in the paper, and secondly that this is currently not enacted in law.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
Christian Values?
The Bishop of Manchester has blamed the 'me-first' culture for the recent riots in England. He goes on to explain that in his opinion the problems were down to the 'relentless erosion of Christian values' and a moral deficit in private and public life which had spawned 'acquiitiveness and dishonesty'.
I have to take him to task on two key issues here.
Firstly he is rather suggesting that only Christians have values and morals which is totally inaccurate. The majority of the people in this country have good values, ethics and moral standards regardless of which religion they support, and of course those who have no religion. It is totally wrong to say that Christians have the monopoly on this.
Secondly, we regularly hear cases of those in the church who one would expect to demonstrate these so called 'Christian values' demonstrating anything but. To take just two examples we have the child abuse within the Catholic church, and the number of church ministers who seem to ignore the sanctity of marriage in their dealings with their parishioners and have extra-marital affairs, ruining lives. I seem to remember a saying about people in glass houses and stones.
Perhaps the church lives by the maxim of 'Do what I say, not what I do'
I have to take him to task on two key issues here.
Firstly he is rather suggesting that only Christians have values and morals which is totally inaccurate. The majority of the people in this country have good values, ethics and moral standards regardless of which religion they support, and of course those who have no religion. It is totally wrong to say that Christians have the monopoly on this.
Secondly, we regularly hear cases of those in the church who one would expect to demonstrate these so called 'Christian values' demonstrating anything but. To take just two examples we have the child abuse within the Catholic church, and the number of church ministers who seem to ignore the sanctity of marriage in their dealings with their parishioners and have extra-marital affairs, ruining lives. I seem to remember a saying about people in glass houses and stones.
Perhaps the church lives by the maxim of 'Do what I say, not what I do'
Monday, August 15, 2011
Religious Discrimination
We often hear of cases where an individual feels they have been the victim of unfair discrimination because of their religion, whatever it may be. This makes news headlines and has the leaders of the appropriate church up in arms.
Less reported are the cases where someone has been discriminated against because they are not religious. This despite the fact that people with no religion are far from being a tiny minority. The cause for this lack of reporting is more likely to be the religious views held by some of the more influential figures in the media.
A case in point is a letter I was reading in a recent publication. It has been reported that the Scouting movement is in need of more adult volunteers. The writer of the letter, a father of two and also a parent governor, tried to volunteer. He was turned down as being unsuitable merely because he is an atheist.
This is unacceptable discrimination, yet I am sure the press would consider it not worthy even of a couple of lines somewhere. A man is prevented from displaying his palm cross in his company van and it makes the papers and the TV news.
What is the difference? Each case is one individual being discriminated against by an organisation on the grounds of what they believe or don't believe.
There are two issues here. First of all the chap volunteering for the Scouts was rejected for no valid reason, secondly the media are clearly biased in terms of what they report which is another form of discrimination.
I will be interested to see the figures from the 2011 census to show the breakdown of religious beliefs and those with no religion. I am sure that it will show that a large percentage of the UK hold no religious beliefs. If this is the case then the media should ensure they represent this fairly.
Less reported are the cases where someone has been discriminated against because they are not religious. This despite the fact that people with no religion are far from being a tiny minority. The cause for this lack of reporting is more likely to be the religious views held by some of the more influential figures in the media.
A case in point is a letter I was reading in a recent publication. It has been reported that the Scouting movement is in need of more adult volunteers. The writer of the letter, a father of two and also a parent governor, tried to volunteer. He was turned down as being unsuitable merely because he is an atheist.
This is unacceptable discrimination, yet I am sure the press would consider it not worthy even of a couple of lines somewhere. A man is prevented from displaying his palm cross in his company van and it makes the papers and the TV news.
What is the difference? Each case is one individual being discriminated against by an organisation on the grounds of what they believe or don't believe.
There are two issues here. First of all the chap volunteering for the Scouts was rejected for no valid reason, secondly the media are clearly biased in terms of what they report which is another form of discrimination.
I will be interested to see the figures from the 2011 census to show the breakdown of religious beliefs and those with no religion. I am sure that it will show that a large percentage of the UK hold no religious beliefs. If this is the case then the media should ensure they represent this fairly.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Death Penalty
Recent proposals have me somewhat concerned. This is the concept that the House of Commons could be asked to debate the reinstatement of the death penalty. I think this is wrong on a number of counts:
Given the number of miscarriages of justice, corruption in the police and other involved parties I could never be confident that the right person was being put to death. Evidence of crimes may also be inconclusive or misleading.
Violence never solved anything, and this could not be considered to be acting in defence of the victim(s) of the crime. If indeed the crime was murder, no punishment will bring the victim back.
A life sentence gives more time, if less focus, for the perpetrator to consider the wrong they committed. However I am very much of the view that for the more serious crimes then life should mean just that. In prison until their natural end of life.
Some religious texts however do seem to suggest the concept of an eye for an eye.
As far as I am aware, Jesus went back on the word of God in that the Old Testament promotes this punishment in Leviticus but the Sermon on the Mount later on waters it down to turn the other cheek.
What are we as a country to do? I can see that the death penalty may be a deterrent to some but, as the recent riots have demonstrated, there are those who seem to have no concern for any of the consequences of their actions or compassion for their victims.
I think that until we can address these issues, and I doubt we ever will, we cannot bring back the death penalty. I wholeheartedly believe however that life sentences should be issued for murder and should mean life.
Given the number of miscarriages of justice, corruption in the police and other involved parties I could never be confident that the right person was being put to death. Evidence of crimes may also be inconclusive or misleading.
Violence never solved anything, and this could not be considered to be acting in defence of the victim(s) of the crime. If indeed the crime was murder, no punishment will bring the victim back.
A life sentence gives more time, if less focus, for the perpetrator to consider the wrong they committed. However I am very much of the view that for the more serious crimes then life should mean just that. In prison until their natural end of life.
Some religious texts however do seem to suggest the concept of an eye for an eye.
As far as I am aware, Jesus went back on the word of God in that the Old Testament promotes this punishment in Leviticus but the Sermon on the Mount later on waters it down to turn the other cheek.
What are we as a country to do? I can see that the death penalty may be a deterrent to some but, as the recent riots have demonstrated, there are those who seem to have no concern for any of the consequences of their actions or compassion for their victims.
I think that until we can address these issues, and I doubt we ever will, we cannot bring back the death penalty. I wholeheartedly believe however that life sentences should be issued for murder and should mean life.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Misleading Advertising
Once again I am drawn to comment on what I would describe as misleading advertising to dupe the unsuspecting public.
In the paper I saw an advert for a shower gel product, with the European Eco-Label displayed. They show on the label of the product that it contains no Parabens, Colourants, Phthalates, or Phenoxyethanol.
All very good and we are to presume these are bad for the environment so it is laudable that the product does not contain them.
It all goes wrong however when I look at my standard supermarket own brand shower gel, and guess what? Despite making no bold environmental claims, it too has none of these ingredients in the product.
What is more, it is probably between one third and one sixth of the price of the 'Eco-Label' product depending upon the offers in force and by being supplied in larger bottles it is more economical on packaging.
Beware Eco claims, they may not be all they seem!
In the paper I saw an advert for a shower gel product, with the European Eco-Label displayed. They show on the label of the product that it contains no Parabens, Colourants, Phthalates, or Phenoxyethanol.
All very good and we are to presume these are bad for the environment so it is laudable that the product does not contain them.
It all goes wrong however when I look at my standard supermarket own brand shower gel, and guess what? Despite making no bold environmental claims, it too has none of these ingredients in the product.
What is more, it is probably between one third and one sixth of the price of the 'Eco-Label' product depending upon the offers in force and by being supplied in larger bottles it is more economical on packaging.
Beware Eco claims, they may not be all they seem!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Chinese Lanterns
More and more these days we are seeing these pesky chinese lanterns. They are launched at weddings, parties, in fact any time when someone has got them without any particular reason.
I think they should be banned on a number of grounds, and this is just from personal knowledge - there may be other reasons that I haven't thought of.
Firstly, it seems that they never burn out completely, so even those with 'biodegradable' frames rather than metal wires will still come to earth in some form. The metal frames are litter that is dangerous to animals and children that come across them, but even the new biodegradable frames are potentially hazardous and can remain around for a long time.
Secondly, the fire risk. I have seen a chinese lantern, still burining, land on the roof of a nearby house. This was likely to be the result of a downdraft which exceeded the lantern's ability to rise. Fortunately it sat on the tiles and burned out without causing any damage- how different that could have been if it had landed on say a plastic gutter, thatched roof, or perhaps a dry crop in a farmer's field? There could have been massive and expensive fire damage.
Then of course we have the calls to the emergency services after people are convinced they have seen distress flares, aircraft going down in flames or in some cases, they are convinced these are aliens flying over.
Finally for now, as a pilot I have never had the misfortune to encounter one whilst airborne, but there are clearly two concerns. Firstly there is the possible damage, though unlikely, if one or more lanterns are ingested by an aircraft engine - the metal framed ones will be worse here. Secondly, the potential distraction caused to the crew if one suddenly comes into their field of view and they have to quickly identify it. Here I speak from experience of flying around bonfire night, with around 500 litres of high octane fuel in tanks either side of me, and questioning how high fireworks can get! The simple answer is that I climbed another 1,000 feet just to be sure but these lanterns can get very high depending on the weather conditions. I wouldn't want to experience that!
I think they should be banned on a number of grounds, and this is just from personal knowledge - there may be other reasons that I haven't thought of.
Firstly, it seems that they never burn out completely, so even those with 'biodegradable' frames rather than metal wires will still come to earth in some form. The metal frames are litter that is dangerous to animals and children that come across them, but even the new biodegradable frames are potentially hazardous and can remain around for a long time.
Secondly, the fire risk. I have seen a chinese lantern, still burining, land on the roof of a nearby house. This was likely to be the result of a downdraft which exceeded the lantern's ability to rise. Fortunately it sat on the tiles and burned out without causing any damage- how different that could have been if it had landed on say a plastic gutter, thatched roof, or perhaps a dry crop in a farmer's field? There could have been massive and expensive fire damage.
Then of course we have the calls to the emergency services after people are convinced they have seen distress flares, aircraft going down in flames or in some cases, they are convinced these are aliens flying over.
Finally for now, as a pilot I have never had the misfortune to encounter one whilst airborne, but there are clearly two concerns. Firstly there is the possible damage, though unlikely, if one or more lanterns are ingested by an aircraft engine - the metal framed ones will be worse here. Secondly, the potential distraction caused to the crew if one suddenly comes into their field of view and they have to quickly identify it. Here I speak from experience of flying around bonfire night, with around 500 litres of high octane fuel in tanks either side of me, and questioning how high fireworks can get! The simple answer is that I climbed another 1,000 feet just to be sure but these lanterns can get very high depending on the weather conditions. I wouldn't want to experience that!
Friday, August 5, 2011
Government Petitions
Has anyone noticed that the present government is following in the footsteps of their predecessors with the idea of e-petitions on the internet.
Anyone can propose a petition and if it is accepted by the moderator (first opportunity to ignore the public) it is published and members of the public can sign the petition.
If a government set target of number of signatures is received (second opportunity to ignore us) then the petition is moved forward for consideration by a committee.
If approved by the committee (third opportunity - is a pattern emerging here) then it is given time in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons can then discuss the proposed issue and have the final opportunity to reject it.
How much influence therefore do we really have?
I signed a number of e-petitions under the previous government. Only one reached its close date before the scheme was quietly dropped. From the one that did survive I received an email from the Prime Minister's office effectively saying 'thank you for your interest but you are wrong and we are right' No further debate or action was implemented. Doubtless my name was added to a list of troublemakers somewhere!
I think the other issue is one of representation - unless you keep an eye on all the e-petitions presented, and I am sure there are many, a petition may go through, say supported by 150,000 people. This is a small proportion of the voting adults in this country. If there is a strong feeling against the petition the only way to express this is to launch a counter petition at about the same time so that when both close it is possible for the powers that be to balance both sides of the equation.
Perhaps a better idea would be an e-referendum whereby anyone can sign for OR against the topic proposed.
All in all I think this is flawed and does not allow the public to properly make their feelings known to the government of the day. It is just another crumb to make us think that we are being listened to.
Anyone can propose a petition and if it is accepted by the moderator (first opportunity to ignore the public) it is published and members of the public can sign the petition.
If a government set target of number of signatures is received (second opportunity to ignore us) then the petition is moved forward for consideration by a committee.
If approved by the committee (third opportunity - is a pattern emerging here) then it is given time in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons can then discuss the proposed issue and have the final opportunity to reject it.
How much influence therefore do we really have?
I signed a number of e-petitions under the previous government. Only one reached its close date before the scheme was quietly dropped. From the one that did survive I received an email from the Prime Minister's office effectively saying 'thank you for your interest but you are wrong and we are right' No further debate or action was implemented. Doubtless my name was added to a list of troublemakers somewhere!
I think the other issue is one of representation - unless you keep an eye on all the e-petitions presented, and I am sure there are many, a petition may go through, say supported by 150,000 people. This is a small proportion of the voting adults in this country. If there is a strong feeling against the petition the only way to express this is to launch a counter petition at about the same time so that when both close it is possible for the powers that be to balance both sides of the equation.
Perhaps a better idea would be an e-referendum whereby anyone can sign for OR against the topic proposed.
All in all I think this is flawed and does not allow the public to properly make their feelings known to the government of the day. It is just another crumb to make us think that we are being listened to.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Integrated Public Transport
One of my problems with public transport is the method of payment. It is inconvenient to carry around large amounts of change and assorted bank notes just to cover the various fares we have to pay.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Dual Standard Church
I see from the paper today that the Church is once more meddling where it is not wanted.
This time it is over plans to charge for parking on Sundays. Their case is that this is another sign of the commercialisation of Sundays.
If they wish to object over this then they should first of all put their own house in order.
As an example consider York Minster. On Sundays, as on all other days when the Minster is open to visitors a charge of £9.00 is made per adult, with an additional £5.50 charge if you wish to climb the tower. The church will of course claim that this is to contribute to upkeep costs.
How does this differ from charging for car parking, where the revenue is to pay for upkeep of the car park?
Furthermore, within the Minster there is a shop, trading on Sundays. Again this is commercialisation and I would have thought this went against the teaching of the church that Sunday should be a day of rest with no work.
Of course this is repeated in many religious buildings across the whole country. This is pure hypocrisy. If the church wishes to abolish working on Sunday and the commercialisation of their day of rest they should start by setting an example.
This time it is over plans to charge for parking on Sundays. Their case is that this is another sign of the commercialisation of Sundays.
If they wish to object over this then they should first of all put their own house in order.
As an example consider York Minster. On Sundays, as on all other days when the Minster is open to visitors a charge of £9.00 is made per adult, with an additional £5.50 charge if you wish to climb the tower. The church will of course claim that this is to contribute to upkeep costs.
How does this differ from charging for car parking, where the revenue is to pay for upkeep of the car park?
Furthermore, within the Minster there is a shop, trading on Sundays. Again this is commercialisation and I would have thought this went against the teaching of the church that Sunday should be a day of rest with no work.
Of course this is repeated in many religious buildings across the whole country. This is pure hypocrisy. If the church wishes to abolish working on Sunday and the commercialisation of their day of rest they should start by setting an example.
Nottingham Transport System
Some years ago Nottingham started developing what seemed like a good transport system. There was to be a new tram system providing links from outside the city direct to the centre. You would be able to leave your car at one of the car parks on the outskirts of the city and travel quickly and easily to the heart of it.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)