Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Pre-Budget Report

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Pre-Budget Report

Any thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't agree with the 100% increase in air passenger duty. I completely oppose government attempts to make air travel less affordable and make it a privilege solely for the wealthy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I on the contrary agree with the rise.

    Air fuel should be taxed, not subsidied. Certainly when it comes to short-haul flights. Long haul is a different story as air travel is often the only alternative.

    The proportion of air travel between London and Scotland is unnaceptably high. Though to be fair it is difficult to convince travellers to switch to trains when our network is so pisspoor.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The proportion of air travel between London and Scotland is unnaceptably high. Though to be fair it is difficult to convince travellers to switch to trains when our network is so pisspoor.

    I didn't know that it was particularly high. GNER run an overall pretty good service and on a different note until pretty recently they even had a smoking carriage which was nice.

    It's easy to criticise domestic air travel if you live in London, if you don't it often makes sense. For example, if you live in Leeds and need to fly to the States you might fly from Leeds and then change at Heathrow. If you got the train you'd have to go into Leeds, go to Kings X, then get the tube to Heathrow or fork out for the Heathrow Express...In short, it would be quicker and easier to just fly from Leeds. (And if you've ever got the piccadilly line from Central London to Heathrow you'll know it's horribly slow).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe the money will be put towards improving the British Public transport for Cross-Country travel...but most likely not.

    I think that the increase on Air travel is right, but if you think of the size of some of the air company profits, you would think a cap could also be applied to cost of tickets so prices can not be passed to the customer. That is an opinion, i havent looked at the specifics of costs though.

    I thought the Shadow Chancellor did well in the Commons though when he questioned the Report.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I want subsidised peanut kit kat chunkies on the nhs, they are very therapeutic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's easy to criticise domestic air travel if you live in London, if you don't it often makes sense. For example, if you live in Leeds and need to fly to the States you might fly from Leeds and then change at Heathrow. If you got the train you'd have to go into Leeds, go to Kings X, then get the tube to Heathrow or fork out for the Heathrow Express...In short, it would be quicker and easier to just fly from Leeds. (And if you've ever got the piccadilly line from Central London to Heathrow you'll know it's horribly slow).
    Well I'd just go from Manchester instead. ;)

    Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with any of these measures if the train prices hadn't increased ahead of inflation yet again. It's all well and good trying to use taxes to get people to change their behaviour, but you've got to present them with a viable alternative.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I don't agree with the 100% increase in air passenger duty. I completely oppose government attempts to make air travel less affordable and make it a privilege solely for the wealthy.

    Myself, I'll agree with you.

    I fell personally, that this is, as with any democratic party, sidestepping the issue just to be seen to be taking action.

    What really pollutes? Cars? No. Planes? No. Big Industry and Fossil Fuel powerplants? Oh yes! However, the government WILL NOT take action against big industry because it makes them nice piles of cash. Fossil Fuel powerplants are cheaper than the far more sensible nuclear long term prospect (when we get them? 2012 ffs?) and as such, are good for hte short term too!

    I mean, fucking hell. Even China is making some steps towards regulating Industry pollution now. I thought "WTF?" at first then realised there were looking at the long term future. Little steps, but it is more than the USA has done, and it isn't Brown's farcical idea to distract us from his lack of real action on climate change.

    Flight should be cheap, Ryanair, EasyJet, etc (as annoying and crap as they are to fly with) has bought Air Travel to the masses. I love it personally, I put up with a crap flight, leaking ventilation system, and a sideways landing (I shit you not.) and I get more spending money on holiday. Brill.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't know that it was particularly high. GNER run an overall pretty good service and on a different note until pretty recently they even had a smoking carriage which was nice.
    According to the following report, of all the journeys between London and Glasgow & Edinburgh taken by air or train, an incredible 75% is done by air with only the remaining 25% being done by train:
    The SKM research shows that some 350,000 trips per year are made by London residents to and from Scotland to visit friends and relatives. Between London, and Edinburgh and Glasgow, air has three-quarters of the combined air and rail market. On routes where rail should be viable, air has a high share of traffic. The lack of a high speed line coupled with poor operator performance means that air travel may often be preferred to rail, particularly if time is at a premium, for example a weekend away.
    http://tinyurl.com/ychbql


    So I believe we should do everything we can to change that trend, higher taxes & duties included. Though like I said earlier the situation is not helped by our shit rail network. Some expert was talking about this two days ago on the telly and he said how country after country in Europe, from France to Spain to Germany to even Portugal, has already their major cities linked by true high speed lines or is in the process of opening them.

    In Britain on the other hand, it will have taken 12 years to have our first real high speed line by the time is finished in 2008, and the only place it takes you is abroad. It is nothing short of a national disgrace and an embarassement that a high speed line has never been built between London and Scotland. Pendolinos or not, the stratospherically high prices and the 4 hours + it takes to get there are simply not good enough.

    They should increase the air taxes on domestic flights even more, and use the revenue to give Britain a decent high speed line so it can join the 21st century.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i feel sorry for the bugger who's got to go through the books and sort out the economy when he's gone, whoever it is won't be a very popular man.......cheers gordie.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    What really pollutes? Cars? No. Planes? No. Big Industry and Fossil Fuel powerplants? Oh yes! However, the government WILL NOT take action against big industry because it makes them nice piles of cash. Fossil Fuel powerplants are cheaper than the far more sensible nuclear long term prospect (when we get them? 2012 ffs?) and as such, are good for hte short term too!

    I bet every Brit could drive a 4x4 to work, fly to Paris and back every weekend and still, Brits would constitute a tiny proportion of emissions compared to China or the US. Our emissions equal just 2% of global emissions - comply with the green brigade and take every 4x4 off the road and ground every aeroplane, it will not make any difference. Green taxes have nothing to with being green, they're nothing more than a pointless gesture and a stealth tax by the government designed to take even more money from us.

    If climate change is happening and if it is affected by human behaviour and if it can be prevented by humans changing their habits - all big if's that have not been proven, it will take an extraordinary level of united co-operation with the entire world on board. In other words when pigs fly...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    the stratospherically high prices and the 4 hours + it takes to get there are simply not good enough.

    I do not disagree with Britain needing better high speed inter-city rail travel (although I would fund it differently).

    But, I do not think 4+ hours London-Scotland is that unacceptable. With a Young Persons Railcard (valid on most journeys, 1/3 off, about £20 a year) I've been up to Edinburgh before for about £35 return and it's took a bit over 4 hours I think). Driving would take longer and factoring in getting to the airport, check-in, baggage and the airport not being in the centre of the city flying often isn't any quicker. And admittedly I've only done it a few times but the train has always been a lot cheaper than flying...Which makes me think that many people fly because they have a good reason, i.e. they're catching a connecting flight from Heathrow.

    Tbh if you really want to get tough on flying I wouldn't pick on domestic flights, I'd guess a higher proportion of 'unnecessary' flights are taken to European cities by people taking advantage of a cheap fare to take a short break. (Almost everyone has done it..)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Green taxes have nothing to with being green, they're nothing more than a pointless gesture and a stealth tax by the government designed to take even more money from us.

    wow, for once we are in 100% agreement. I think 5-10 years ago the govt wouldn't have the balls to try this but now that there is more focus on the environment, global warming etc they can get away with this shit and not lose too many votes over it, because the public will think their government is being environmentally responsible :lol: pull the other one......will this money be put towards investment in public transport or research into renewable energy etc? i think not, it will probably end up in the blackhole that is GBs i'll-tax-you-to-the-grave-and-still-have-a-massive-budget-deficit legacy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    wow, for once we are in 100% agreement. I think 5-10 years ago the govt wouldn't have the balls to try this but now that there is more focus on the environment, global warming etc they can get away with this shit and not lose too many votes over it, because the public will think their government is being environmentally responsible :lol: pull the other one......will this money be put towards investment in public transport or research into renewable energy etc? i think not, it will probably end up in the blackhole that is GBs budget deficit legacy.

    Indeed. But I'm not sure Brown will buy into some of the more extreme 'green' tax proposals. Brown is not averse to resort to populism. And Cameron's gimmicky focus on the environment is designed to win over middle class LibDems.

    In Australian political commentators frequently refer to 'battlers' - a term for blue collar workers who have abandoned Labor for John Howard's Liberals. 'Green' taxes would affect the poor disproportionately wherever and there is potential for a political party to make capital out of that. Environmental legislation frequently has the effect of increasing costs and bureaucracy whilst not doing a great deal to protect the environment; invariably it hurts industry and the consequent redundancies rarely affect the chattering classes advocating such measures. Howard in Australia seems to have realised this.

    Brown isn't stupid and if he continues to lag behind in the polls I could see him following Howard's lead and opposing green taxes and the like - because other than comforting the consciences of concerned middle class do-gooders they really aren't going to make much difference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The thing is the further the destination the more justified air travel becomes. Yes, there are a lot of air journeys to the Continent. But then again it is quite impractical- and expensive- for a family to go to the Costa del Sol or to Majorca by train. They'd spend half their holiday getting there and back anyway.

    Whereas I can understand the practicality of using an internal flight to connect from 'the Counties' to London when you're flying abroad, we should target other internal flights that could be avoided. Such as London to Scotland, or indeed to Cornwall.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Air travel has only become an issue because of EasyJet and their ilk, and it is a huge growing problem for the environment.

    Train travel in this country is excellent, and much cheaper than flying. To compare, to fly tomorrow (walk on fare) from Newcastle to London return is £90 by train or £195 by air, and the air fare restricts you to one flight out and back, whereas the train fare is for any train for a month. The train is proven to be quicker door-to-door too.

    Air taxes are being raised not for "green" issues, though, its simply to raise more cash for the Treasury. But that's fine, seeing as how airlines get huge tax breaks anyway, its time that they were all abolished and that airlines should have to pay commercial rates.

    It's a problem that many stealth taxes affect the poor but don't affect the rich at all, I'm not sure how to change this though. I think internal flights should attract more tax than continental flights, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Train travel in this country is excellent
    I know you and me have discussed this issue countless times, but I never cease to be amazed by your thoughts in the state of rail transport.

    No doubt train services are all great and good round your parts. They aren't down South, believe me.

    In every country where there is a proper high speed line that works well, is affordable, reliable and comfortable, air travel for that route has been significantly reduced. And there is cheap air travel there too.

    That the London-Scotland route continues to be dominated by air travel to the tune of 4 to 1 is all the proof you need that rail services in this country are far from excellent.

    In fact they are expensive, unreliable, and worse of all you don't even get a seat sometimes and have to spend several hours sitting on your suitcase next to the toilets freezing your nuts off. Little wonder most people would rather go by air.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Child Benefit to be paid to pregnant women from 29 weeks from April 2009.

    Moving away from one aspect of the PBR... does anyone have any views on this?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I know you and me have discussed this issue countless times, but I never cease to be amazed by your thoughts in the state of rail transport.

    And I think you know jack shit about the railways...especially as you seem to think a taxi is public transport :)

    Railways are cheaper than flying, they are quicker than flying, but people fly because of clever marketing by the airlines, and because of prolonged and unjustified attacks on the railways by clueless journalists with a very badly hidden agenda.

    In just about every area railways beat the airlines hands down- safety, punctuality, cost, customer service, speed- yet because the media says planes are good and trains are bad everyone believes that. It continues to astound me how people get so upset at a 10-minute delay on the trains, but don't think twice about sitting in a traffic jam that adds a delay measurable in hours.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    In just about every area railways beat the airlines hands down- safety, punctuality, cost, customer service, speed- yet because the media says planes are good and trains are bad everyone believes that. It continues to astound me how people get so upset at a 10-minute delay on the trains, but don't think twice about sitting in a traffic jam that adds a delay measurable in hours.
    Because a ten minute delay on the train almost always translates into an actual delay of about an hour since you've just missed the train you were supposed to be getting on and have to wait for the next one. Sometimes even longer. My train to Aberystwyth came every 2 hours, so ten minutes meant it took me 2 hours more than it should to get there (and that would happen probably one in two times I made the journey). And don't get me started on Sunday travel. 6 1/2 hours from Aberystwyth to Birmingham, entirely down to the incompetence of the staff! The trains can get fucked for all I care, I'm buying a car.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    And I think you know jack shit about the railways...especially as you seem to think a taxi is public transport :)
    At least I don't pretend the entire rail netowrk works great because my local service does.
    Railways are cheaper than flying
    Sometimes. Some other times they are way more expensive. It's pot luck, really. But it shouldn't be. In every other country train prices are competitive. In this country they are the most expensive in Europe, probably the world.
    they are quicker than flying
    If the train arrives on time and if there is a horrendeous traffic jam between the airport and the city centre, this can sometimes happen. But that's seldom the case.
    but people fly because of clever marketing by the airlines, and because of prolonged and unjustified attacks on the railways by clueless journalists with a very badly hidden agenda.
    I should think it's the countless horror stories and personal experiences of passengers that drive them away from it.
    In just about every area railways beat the airlines hands down- safety, punctuality, cost, customer service, speed- yet because the media says planes are good and trains are bad everyone believes that. It continues to astound me how people get so upset at a 10-minute delay on the trains, but don't think twice about sitting in a traffic jam that adds a delay measurable in hours.
    Oh people get upset about a lot more than 10-minute delays. Rip-off fares for instance. Or the fact that you might spend a 5-hour journey standing up. At least you know you will get a seat on an airplane.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Trains in the south-east are shocking, expensive and regularly broken. Fact. I travel from Brighton to Luton regularly, (allegedly) a straight through line. The past three journeys I’ve made I’ve had to disembark at Three Bridges / Hayward’s Heath and get a bus the remain 30 – 40 miles of the journey. 50% of return journeys to Brighton involve me having to get off in North London, traipse across London on the tube, then get on another train for the final leg of the journey. This 90 mile journey, if driven in clear conditions, can be done 1hr 15mins and have plenty of fuel left from a £20 fill-up. On a train it takes 2hr 15mins, costs me £35, and often involves a fair amount of leg work.

    I have no knowledge of trains in the North, but in the South it would be a fallacy to purport they are nothing but atrocious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Oh people get upset about a lot more than 10-minute delays. Rip-off fares for instance. Or the fact that you might spend a 5-hour journey standing up. At least you know you will get a seat on an airplane.

    It is perfectly simple to book a seat on a train. It also greatly reduces the cost if you book in advance and there are numerous railcards available.

    Most people would not turn up to an airport and expect to get a seat, they book substantially in advance, which is what you should do for trains as well, at least for long and/or important journeys......

    Yes trains are often late, but then so have most of the planes i have used recently (3 out of 4).

    When I lived in sheffield I found the sheffield to leicester service to be perfectly adequate, and decently priced compared to buses, taxis and probably cars when you factor in the many costs associated with them.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    It is perfectly simple to book a seat on a train. It also greatly reduces the cost if you book in advance and there are numerous railcards available.
    The last train I was on, you physically couldn't walk down the isle to get to the toilet, so I can't imagine what the people with big suitcases had to put up with (well actually I can, because I've had to do that before). So to try and find your seat on that would be ridiculous. I'm happy to travel on the train as long as there's no changeovers involved. As soon as there is, you might as well walk, it'll get you there quicker (once I actually failed to get off the train at the right stop because there was so much shit in the way of the door, and the staff blatantly refused to do anything about it even though they could see I was trying to get off). A car might not be reliable at getting you to certain places on time, but then it doesn't claim to get you there at a certain time, like trains do. And it gets you there in comfort, with your own seat, radio, no phones going off constantly, sets off when you want, and it takes no effort to aim in a service station toilet. I don't know about planes. I can't be arsed with the whole check-in process personally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    It is perfectly simple to book a seat on a train.

    :lol:

    The scene: 5pm - Kingscross - 100 people sandwiched into a carriage.

    "Excuse me sir, that's my seat you're sitting in."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    At least I don't pretend the entire rail netowrk works great because my local service does.

    I've travelled all over the country through both business and pleasure...the worst delay I've ever had was about two hours because someone threw themselves under a train.
    es. Some other times they are way more expensive. It's pot luck, really. But it shouldn't be. In every other country train prices are competitive. In this country they are the most expensive in Europe, probably the world.

    I just compared two fares for the next day above. Train, full fare, was £90 return, plane was over double that, and the plane restricted you to one service in each direction.

    The cheapest return train fare from Newcastle centre to Central London is £15. The cheapest air fare is at least £15, and then you have to spend another £15 on getting from Stansted or Luton.
    If the train arrives on time and if there is a horrendeous traffic jam between the airport and the city centre, this can sometimes happen. But that's seldom the case.

    Take Newcastle-London. The quickest train is under 3 hours centre to centre. The plane involves a 30-minute tube ride to Newcastle airport, 30 minutes at check-in, 1 hour to get through security, one hour in the air, 30 minutes at baggage reclaim and then another 30 mins on the tube/HEx into London.
    I should think it's the countless horror stories and personal experiences of passengers that drive them away from it.

    Most are grossly overstated, some are complete fabrications.

    This is the same media that blamed the railways for a crash resulting from someone parking a Land Rover on a 125mph main line because of incompetent driving, and that blamed the railways for the crash resulting from someone committing suicide on a level crossing, remember.
    Or the fact that you might spend a 5-hour journey standing up. At least you know you will get a seat on an airplane.

    If train companies started only letting as many people on trains as there are seats you'd have a heart attack.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol:

    The scene: 5pm - Kingscross - 100 people sandwiched into a carriage.

    "Excuse me sir, that's my seat you're sitting in."

    An average carriage has about 70 seats, so 100 people ain't that many!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    An average carriage has about 70 seats, so 100 people ain't that many!

    On one of your fancy northern trains, maybe. On southern rail we have to fight over 6 up-turned buckets. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We can argue about the media representation and percentage of trains that are late, and any other irrelevant facts all we want. The fact is that most people are turned off the trains by their own personal experiences in using them. And no amount of statistics is going to change that. It's like quoting unemployment figures to someone who's just been made redundant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most people are unrealistic idiots who will be apoplectic if the train is 30 seconds late but will not think twice about setting off driving an hour earlier than they need to "because of the traffic".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, because naturally you know everyone elses experiences better than them. :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.