Cameron 'governs' the UK? Does he hell!

Exhibit 1: Richard North, EU Referendum, quotes Cameron on the subject of maritime safety saying that:

".......if changes need to be made, including on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, of course we will make them."

Exhibit 2: European Commission - Mobility & Transport:


Maritime Safety: Commission requests the United Kingdom to comply with new safety rules and standards for passengers engaged in domestic voyages [IP/12/57]:

"If this Member State fails to inform the Commission within two months of the measures it has taken to ensure full compliance with EU law, the Commission could refer the case to the EU Court of Justice.....The United Kingdom has failed to notify the Commission of all the measures taken to enforce the new Directive although required to do so by 29 June 2011. The United Kingdom has only notified the Commission of partial measures of implementation."

Not maritime. but related:


Driving licences: Commission requests Denmark, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Portugal to adopt measures on driving licences [IP/12/55]

"Directive 2006/126/EC updates Directive 91/439/EC on driving licences, by for example introducing new driving licence categories and a harmonised period of validity of the driving licence document.......Denmark, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Portugal still have not fully transposed this Directive into national law, although they were required to do so by 19 January 2011."

January and June 2011? 2011??? Oops!


One wonders who will get put through the carwash and/or keelhauled? Hammond or Greening? The latter is lucky in that she is 'justin' time to qualify.

Afterthought: The two items quoted above were as a result of news from The Albion Alliance Presents - a site well worth bookmarking!

More HS2 Shenanighans

From PoliticsHome we learn that the Department for Transport have announced they have found an extra £500m which will be used to build a tunnel under the Chiltern Hills for the controversial HS2 train line. The extra funding means that a decision on HS2 will be delayed from this month to mid-January 2012, but is likely to assauge some of the opposition to the plans. The story is covered elsewhere here, here and here.

From the Guardian article we are informed that this extra £500m is to provide a further tunnel of 1.5 miles taken on the basis it would reduce aesthetic damage to the Chilterns, an area of outstanding natural beauty. From the Daily Telegraph we learn:

"The first six mile section to Old Oak Common Lane in northwest London is tunnelled before running over-ground to the M25, and then passing through another tunnel. This tunnel surfaces after Amersham for a mile, before entering a shorter tunnel, which ends at South Heath. The new cash will be used to join up the Amersham tunnel with the shorter tunnel."

And whose constitutuency is Chesham and Amersham? And who, besides David Lidington, has threatened to resign if HS2 crosses their constituency? Forgive me, but this decision 'stinks'! It reeks of public money being spent to save the government of the day very high profile resignation(s); and all the fall-out that that would entail.

We learn that Justine Greening is to delay any decision until January next year, although it is noted that she is due to appear before the Transport Select Committee on Wednesday 14th December at 17:05 hours. From the BBC suggestions have been made by the Campaign to Protect Rural England that the extra money has been found by possibly 'ungreening' (pun intended!) other sections of the line; and it is to be wondered whether Justine Greening will be forthcoming about such matters when she does appear before the Select Committee, assuming of course the question is asked, or whether she will make such details clear in her statement to the HoC.

In the recommendations of the last Transport Select Committee report it was noted that claims HS2 would deliver substantial carbon-reduction benefits did not stand up to scrutiny, although in the same paragraph the committee did note that HS2 will produce less carbon than an expanded motorway network or greater domestic aviation in the event of increased demand for inter-urban travel - so on the basis that all this 'carbon scam' is accepted, it presumably shows 'justification' for HS2. One other statement is worthy of mention and that is the Government needs to make clear how HS2 fits into its wider aviation strategy. Once again our politicians are being disingenious with the actualité because the government doesn't have a transport policy, aviation or otherwise; as the EU, by means of Article 4(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) can dictate any aspect of transport policy any time they so choose - and all our pretend government can do is, in effect, then implement any subsequent decision.

Whilst much is made by those against the scheme who have local concerns, it should also be noted that funding proposals have yet to be announced. Philip Hammond, when Transport Secretary, may well contend the project is affordable, yet at the end of the day we do not yet know how much liability there is for the taxpayer. In the letters column of today's Sunday Telegraph it is suggested that taxpayers will be liable for £10billion. (the Castles & Parish report referred to can be read here.) The 17 councils referred to are part of the 51m group, an alliance of councils opposed to HS2, so called because HS2 will costs every Parliamentary constituency £51m. Another matter worth ascertaining is, in discussing revenue that HS2 will produce, I do not see any inclusion to cater for the intention of the EU and their proposal that the 'user pays' concept.

It is also worth noting, if discussing disingeniousness, that in the Transport Committee report and the Castles & Parish paper, the 'EU element' of the Trans-European Network-Transport (TEN-T) appears most noticeable by its absence - but hey, the appearance of 'parliamentary sovereignty' understandably has to be 'maintained at all costs'. (again, pun intended)

As with just about any government 'project', what our political elite are doing with HS2 is spending money that is not theirs in the first place. Now, with 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' they would bloody well have to ask first!

A philip to the greening of the transport brief?

It would seem the media and twitter are totally enthralled with the Liam Fox saga, presumably on the basis that this news trumps all others, so it would be discourteous to let such important news pass on this blog without at least some attempt to comment with the required degree of gravitas that it deserves.

With the announcement that Philip Hammond has been moved to the post of Defense Secretary, which seems an odd choice as Hammond's defense of HS2 was abysmal to say the least, then this can only be held as yet another questionable decision by what may be termed the chief executive officer of EU region UK. One can only suppose Hammond was delighted with his appointment as he must consider it a 'filip' to his career.

In regard to the appointment of Greening to Transport Minister, one can only hope that she shows more of a grasp of her new portfolio than she did as Economic Secretary, when she got 'trashed' by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics. As a result of her performance then, it could perhaps be said that prior to wrecking the nations finances even further we should be grateful that she has been moved 'justine' time.

It is a requirement that all comments to this post continue in a similar vein - thank you.

We've heard this all before

With the Conservative Party conference about to begin, Cameron hits the press with this piece in the Mail which can only be described as yet more political claptrap. The first bit of claptrap comes in his opening paragraph when he states his party will not be meeting to talk amongst themselves but to talk to the nation; yet of course that is exactly what the Conservative Party will do, as do Labour and the Liberal Democrats, whilst allowing the nation to listen in. He writes about the worries of every home in paying rising energy bills, yet who condones the continuance of those worries by his insistence of continued servitude to Brussels who sets the parameters by which energy bills continue to rise? He writes about laying the foundations for a solid future and that as we are not in the euro, that can be done on our terms. We may not be in the euro but we sure as hell are liable for future bail-out sums via the IMF until 2013 and we sure as hell are subject to economic oversight by the EU Commission, with further 'controls' in the pipeline. He also raises the red herring of immigration and the cost of welfare for those immigrants, conveniently omitting the fact that he cannot limit those from the EU and equally he is unable to stop those EU immigrants getting all the benefits of the welfare system.

In a separate article in the same newspaper we are informed that Cameron promises to slash red tape, although in Cameron's piece he does not explicity say that - which is probably just as well because we have heard that from him before here, and here and we are still waiting for it to happen, which it can't again due to EU membership. As Alex Brummer, This is Money, writes:

"Phrases like ‘ending the red tape’ of legislation which has tied business in knots, and a ‘bonfire of the quangos’ trip off the tongues of our politicians so very easily, and are a standard part of almost every speech made on business by prime ministers, business secretaries or chancellors."

Richard North, EU Referendum, 'fisks' Charles Moore's op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, to which little can be added, other than the fact that all Cameron can do where the governance of this country is concerned is 'whistle in the dark'. I can but reiterate that which Richard North writes, that our democratic system is totally unfit for purpose and is rotten to the core both morally and financially. On this subject an interesting article appears in the Daily Telegraph by Graeme Archer; and one passage is worthy of note:

"....... but I’ve never believed the reductionist argument which says we cast our vote primarily for economic reasons. We vote because there’s something about society we want to see re-engineered. Conservatives feel let down, not because the deficit is being tackled, but because too much in society feels the same as it did before the election. They understand that Mr Cameron requires Lib Dem votes to retain his anti-Labour majority, and that being politically shackled to the decaying Lib Dem corpse prevents the introduction, in this parliament, of proper Tory measures – such as tackling the Human Rights Act."

We may well vote in the hope that society will be re-engineered, but it never is - at least not in the way people would like to see. It never will be either, whilst politicians can act as elected dictators and decide matters amongst themselves, consequently, under the present system of democracy, they are wasting their vote.

Reverting to the subject of claptrap, we get more of this from Philip Hammond who again is on his HS2 'hobbytrain' with this article - never heard of TEN-T then, Mr. Hammond? John Redwood posts on the government's plans where development of our rail network is concerned. That the "Delivery Plan" seems to have totally ignored the EU's intended legislation that the user pays and subsidies will not be allowed appears to have escaped their attention - and that of John Redwood. That the "Delivery Plan" reads like the old USSR Tractor Stats makes one wonder whether this document is Tract or Fiction?

We are indeed being led by our political elite like sheep to the slaughter - and still the people remain unaware. No doubt the lightbulb will come on just as the bolt to put them out of their misery is about to be fired into their brains.

Ministers 'know nothing'

So asserts Mike Slade, the chief executive of Helical Bar and chairman of the Conservative Property Forum, whilst also describing Grant Shapps, the housing minister, as a “kid”.

It is a tad unfair of Mike Slade to single out Grant Shapps - although I heartily concur in that having met Shapps, I am of the opinion that besides being a 'kid', the man is an idiot - although unlike those in Brussels, Shapps is at least 'home-grown' and did manage to achieve the educational heights of an HND (Higher Natural Dipstick) obtained at Manchester Polytechnic - now up-graded to Manchester Metropolitan University.

But to highlight Shapps is as I say unfair, especially when he could have also included Cameron, Grayling, Clarke, Hammond - oh forget it, the whole bloody lot that dictate to us in the name of 'democracy'.

Once again, just saying....................

Priorities

The euro is about to implode; Iran, Israel, Palestine and Turkey are flexing their respective muscles; Greece is about to go for broke; Portugal, Spain and Italy are not far behind; debt is multiplying faster than Cameron's 'U' turns; Argentina is beginning to get a tad 'bolshie' over the Falkland Islands; Witney is about to have a road foisted on it costing £20million when an alternative solution costing £4million exists; my Member of Parliament has, so far, taken 4 months (and still counting) to reply to a series of questions; Peter Oborne has now decided to provide yet another example of crass output from what passes as his brain - and what can our government come up with?  Philip Hammond has announced a consultation with a view to increasing the speed on our motorways from 70mph to 80mph, stating that "the current limit has lost its legitimacy."

With a stated intention by the EU to impose a speed limit of 20mph in towns and cities, the idea being to save energy and carbon output, the chances that Philip Hammon will be allowed to progress this idea to a conclusion is looking pretty remote seeing as this would increase both energy used and carbon limits - something about which our real government in Brussels has the proverbial 'bee in the bonnet'.

More importantly though is the fact that it obviously has not crossed this idiots mind (Yup, Brussels you're not alone, we have them in the UK too) that the current politicians have lost their legitimacy and that when the people do decide to act, they won't be offering any 'consultation' - they will, likewise, 'raise' Hammond and his ilk about 6 feet off the ground. I believe the term is 'Summary Justice'!


Update: Bearing in mind Hammond's statement that road casualities would increase 'slightly', might I quote from the latest DG Mobility and Transport email from the EU?

"The European Parliament has this week backed the European Commission's goal for halving the number of road deaths by 2020. This goal is part of the Commission's policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020.
Road safety is a major societal issue. In 2009, more than 35,000 people died on the roads of the European Union, i.e. the equivalent of a medium town, and no fewer than 1,500,000 persons were injured. The cost for society is huge, representing approximately 130 billion Euro in 2009.
In its Communication "Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth", the Commission has underlined the importance for Europe of social cohesion, a greener economy, education and innovation. These objectives should be reflected in the various aspects of European transport policy which should aim at ensuring sustainable mobility for all citizens, "decarbonising" transport and make full use of technological progress. Road safety plays an important role in the  White Paper on transport policy 2010 – 2020, as lowering the number of road users' casualties is key to improving the overall performance of the transport system and to meet citizens' and companies' needs and expectations.
A coherent holistic and integrated approach is therefore needed, taking into account synergies with other policy goals. Road safety policies at local, national, European or international level should integrate relevant objectives of other public policies and vice versa.
The proposed policy orientations takes fully account of the results obtained during the 3rd road safety action programme 2001-2010, showing that in spite of important progress made on road safety, efforts needed to be continued and further strengthened.
The European road safety policy orientations up to 2020 aims to provide a general governance framework and challenging objectives which should guide national or local strategies. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, actions described should be implemented at the most appropriate level and through the most appropriate means.
In the framework of these policy orientations, the Commission considers that the three following actions should be undertaken as a priority:

• the establishment of a structured and coherent cooperation framework which draws on best practices across the Member States, as a necessary condition to implement in an effective manner the road safety policy orientations 2011-2020,
• a strategy for injuries and first aid to address the urgent and growing need to reduce the number of road injuries,
• the improvement of the safety of vulnerable road users, in particular motorcyclists for whom accidents statistics are particularly worrying."

The relevant document can be read, in its entirety here.

More political 'cock-wuffle'....

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like cuttlefish spurting out ink."
George Orwell (Politics and the English Language)

"During its first 15 months, the Coalition Government has been grappling with a series of touch challenges; restoring sustainability to the public finances, rebuilding our economy and delivering our climate change commitments.
Conventional wisdom dictates that supporting economic growth is incompatible with cutting carbon. Like most conventional wisdom, this is way off the mark. But, although reducing carbon on its own is relatively easy, doing so while generating growth and spreading prosperity is a far tougher challenge: one requiring co-operation and commitment from both government and industry.
This is a challenge that this Government is tackling head-on. We are investing in the transport infrastructure and technologies that will help us build a dynamic, balanced economy, while achieving our goals for carbon reduction.
We have announced a major electrification programme to reduce the carbon footprint of our railways. Our plans for a national high-speed rail network would encourage passengers to switch from short-haul aviation to rail, while bridging the north-south divide and spreading prosperity right across the country.
And because, unlike our predecessors, we believe that the enemy is the carbon, not the car, we have also placed Britain firmly in the global vanguard of the green motoring revolution.
Thanks to the ground-breaking Plug-in car grant, which gives motorists a 25pc subsidy of up to £5,000, new ultra-low carbon cars are much more affordable.
We have set out a comprehensive electric vehicle infrastructure strategy that identifies how a national recharging network can develop in a way that is targeted, convenient and safe. And, through our £30m Plugged-in Places programme, a network of vehicle recharging points is being established in eight areas across the UK - from homes and workplaces to streets, car parks, retail and leisure facilities - to allow us.to learn how real consumers use public charging infrastructure
Initiatives like this are paying real dividends in terms of growth and jobs. Major companies are no launching innovative low-carbon vehicles in Britain and being a launch market makes the UK attractive as a manufacturing location. So Nissan is building a plant to manufacture its electric vehicles and batteries in the North-East - and others will follow. Meanwhile Chargemaster and Ecotricity have recently both announced plans to build privately funded networks of thousands of recharging points at motorway service stations and other locations across the UK by the end of the year.
The Government understands the importance of aviation in giving businesses the connectivity they need to thrive in a competitive global economy, but we also recognise that the sector can only grow if it does so sustainably. So we are looking at new ways to incentivise airlines and aircraft manufacturers to address the climate change impact of air travel and encourage investment in low-carbon technologies and fuels.
Technological improvements are vital to improving fuel efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions. There have already been significant changes over the last decades in the efficiency of aircraft, which are today 70pc more efficient than the first commercial jets. New technologies, such as open-rotor engine designs and lightweight composite materials, have the potential to reduce carbon emissions significantly.
All this will feed into the work we are doing on our Sustainable Aviation Framework, which we will publish in draft next year. This framework will ensure that have a positive and enduring policy strategy that enables aviation to support economic growth while addressing its local and global environmental impacts.
In every mode of transport, new technology has a pivotal decarbonising role. But technology alone cannot deliver genuine sustainability. We need a productive blend of dynamic private enterprise and supportive public policy, combined with a much greater devolution of decision-making to local communities, to drive through real and lasting change.
By working in partnership to get that balance right, transport can play its full part in building the stronger economy and the greener, cleaner environment, that this country so badly needs."

So writes Philip Hammond, Transport Secretary, in the print edition of today's Daily Telegraph, outlining the Government's vision for the future of UK transport. This is part of a series being run by the Telegraph, one which has an introduction by Geoffrey Lean, thus:

"It will take a technological revolution to build the green economy, but this is already under way. Much of technology necessary to create low-carbon prosperity is available or being developed - and costs are falling fast. The question is whether Britain will be in the vanguard of developing and using it, reaping the rewards in exports and jobs, or whether, as often in the past, it will stumble along behind more far-seeing economies. In this - the second of seven pages sponsored by Shell under the editorial control of the Telegraph - leading figures describe how green technologies are taking root in such key areas as energy, transport, infrastructure and urban living. You can take part in the debate by contributing reactions and views on line."

Having trawled the Telegraph website, viewed Geoffrey Lean's article page, input "Plugged in to the green agenda (the title of Hammond's piece) into the Telegraph search facility - nothing. Likewise am I unable to find any webpage to contribute reactions and views (even if I wished to) - but I digress.....

Hammond, in common with all politicians, is practising the art of disingeniousness when he writes about investing in the transport infrastructure and technologies that will help build a dynamic, balanced economy while achieving goals for carbon reduction because, in effect, he has no option but to pursue this policy as it is a requirement of the European Union, transport being an area in which the EU has 'shared-competence'. Under the Trans European Network - Transport (TEN-T) the EU can demand certain measures, such as decarbonisation of any form of transport. A trawl round the European Commission Mobility & Transport website or the TEN-T Executive Agency website will confirm this. A further document setting out the requirements of member states can be found in Decision No 661/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council dated 7 July 2010 on Union guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network.

For Hammond to write: "We need a productive blend of dynamic private enterprise and supportive public policy, combined with a much greater devolution of decision-making to local communities, to drive through real and lasting change." is pure political drivel as any 'supposed' devolution of decision-making to local communities will have no bearing on any aspect of any transport decision that is taken. Likewise where Hammond 'trumpets' major electrification programmes to reduce the carbon foot-print of our railways; encouraging passengers to switch from air to rail travel; 'bridging' divides; these are the aims of EU policy. The promotion of electric cars is no more than the aim of TEN-T and Europe 2020, which is one designed to ban all cars with combustion propulsion from city centres. Seems there might be a problem, if this report from the Guardian was correct - although logically there shouldn't be as we all know that "The EU Rules - OK?"

Poor Philip Hammond, he deserves every ounce of sympathy that we can give him - like his Leader, he suffers from the delusion that he is one of those that governs our nation!