Will Greening be 'de-railed', Justine time?*

Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Transport made a statement today in the House of Commons detailing (actually hard details are there none, but I digress) how the Coalition intend improving our rail network, with the publication of their document: "Reforming our railways - Putting the customer first".


It has first to be pointed out that under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Article 4 lists those matters in which the EU shares competence with Member States - item (g) Transport. Also note that transport encompasses all forms of transport, be that air, water, rail or road. Nowhere in the Foreward or Executive Summary is the elephant in the room (EU) mentioned, in other words it didn't even get to open its trunk.


Greening spoke about smart ticketing as if this was a Coalition policy, yet this was discussed by Lord Andrew Adonis in 2009 when he announced plans to boost development and take-up of smart ticketing across the UK. In a speech to the Transport Times conference Adonis highlighted integrated transport systems as one of the key challenges faced by his department. The Department for Transport (DfT) published a consultation document to look at possible incentives that could improve adoption of smart ticketing. Indeed, the Trans European Network - Transport (TEN-T) has already had studies carried out on the benefits of smart ticketing and one of the reports can be read here, included in which is the suggestion that:  "steps that could be taken at an EU level to enhance / accelerate the development, deployment and integration between smart ticketing schemes".


You will note that Greening uses the phrase "average regulated fares" and if you google that phrase the first item is the one you need to click on (Parliament UK Briefing Paper SN01904) which will open a pdf in Adobe Reader.


Greening also spent time discussing how it is the Coalition's intention to provide cheaper fares and here again she has omitted the elephant in the room. Floating round TEN-T is the idea that subsidies for transport should be phased out and all transport services provided on the basis of "user pays" and I posted on this subject back in November 2011, linking to two stories in the Mail. Neither did Greening mention this little meeting that her predecessor, Philip Hammond, attended in which it is stated that: "........In addition, the introduction of self-financing mechanisms (i.e. user-pays and polluter-pays principles) has to be considered in order to generate additional financial resources. Ministers agreed that new financing solutions must be found......".




* The law of averages would have one believe that another train crash such as this is just around the corner - and this woman was elevated to Secretary of State.........?

Err, not strictly true Mr. Redwood - surely?

With a post entitled "Europe again - its always there to trouble us" John Redwood writes:

"I used the opportunity to ask the Minister about the status of the UK’s HS2 project. He confirmed what I have been telling many of you. HS2 is a project which the UK can and does decide for itself. It is not mandated by the EU, and is not on the maps as a crucial part of the EU’s European networks. Critics of the scheme should attack it on its domestic merits and defects, not as a further illustration of too much EU power. There does not seem to be any wish by the EU to find EU money raised from member states to help this project."

Agreed that HS2 is a project which the UK can and does decide for itself; that it is not mandated by the EU, ie there is no EU Directive or Regulation 'enabling' its construction. That is a fact - however knowing our political elite have this overriding aim to show what "good little Europeans we are" I still suspect this to be another of Cameron's "We have decided to ......" with a view to negate the ensuing "Brussels Effect". Perhaps Mr. Redwood did not pay attention to Justine Greening and Statutory Instrument 3066/2011 in which it is notated that our rail system is now known as "the rail system within the Community (now the EU)". If that phrase does not mean that our railway system is no longer under our control - then I must have missed something! Oh and by the way, Mr. Redwood, it is on TEN-T maps - go trawl the TEN-T website....... Ask yourself why the EU has part-funded the rail link between Dublin and Belfast and beyond? Ask yourself why would they do that if it was not to provide a 'transport corridor' from one outer region of the EU, through the UK, to mainland Europe and why there may have been a little 'arm-twisting' on HS2. Are we to see a bridge or tunnel connecting Larne in Ireland to mainland Britain?


That, insidiously, we are being subsumed into the "EU net" is beyond doubt and I find it utterly unbelievable that an avowed, supposed, Eurosceptic appears to be following the public trend of believing that which he is told and doing so without question. There has been much effort expended in obtaining sight of the emails that exist with regard to Huhne and his speeding points - cynic that I am, perhaps the police might wish to spend some time obtaining emails and correspondence between our political elite and those bodies set up to 'investigate' the viability of HS2, together with said correspondence twixt the EU and our 'government'?


One thing is certain - we, the public (and I suspect MPs), are not privy to all the facts about HS2 and why it is being implemented and yet we are expected to fund it. That is democracy? So much for "transparency in government"; so much for 'honesty' on the part of our political elite; so much for the 'honour' of our political elite. Until the foregoing becomes the norm we will continue to live under what is becoming more and more evident as a democratised dictatorship. Until we get some form of direct democracy and an element of 'referism', we will continue to be 'bled dry' as a result of the vanity of those who are supposed to serve us!

More on TEN-T (Transport)

A 'White Paper' on transport, issued by the EU Commission last March slipped under my radar, however there is no time like the present to rectify that error.


From the Directorate-Generale for Mobility and Transport we are advised:


"The European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels has published its second report: Infrastructure for Alternative Fuels, from the Introduction of which we learn:

"Transitions in fuel supply infrastructure and vehicles will be needed for all new transport fuels. These transitions may need to be encouraged or mandated throughout all EU Member States and coordinated at the EU level in order to drive the market forward.

Assuming a reduction of at least 60% of GHGs by 2050 with respect to 1990 in the transport sector, improvements in the energy efficiency of transport operations and vehicles will provide a period of several years to evaluate and develop the technologies for alternative fuel systems that will require major transitions in infrastructure and vehicle design. A timely decision on these major transitions can therefore be taken to ensure a long-term cost-effective and sustainable solution that is commensurate with adequate industrial lead-time.

In view of the scope of change required for a low carbon transport system, it would be recommendable to analyse the current regulatory framework and to identify the gaps and level of policy support required to enable this change, particularly with regard to infrastructure for alternative fuels.

There is a current lack of an EU-wide harmonised alternative fuel infrastructure due to differing levels of development in the Member States. Such fragmented development leads to high costs, hampers consumer acceptance, and prevents the economies of scale which the Single Market could provide. A specific strategy on alternative fuel infrastructure at EU level will be necessary for the short and medium term.

Member States have promoted different alternative fuel infrastructures, because they have opted for different priorities in their fuel choices with regard to the implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive and to the allocation of state support. But there is a clear lack of harmonized EU standards within the various types of alternative fuel refuelling equipment and storage systems.

During the last decade, policy actions have mostly addressed fuel and vehicle developments, neglecting an appropriate alternative fuel infrastructure build-up. Funding to build up alternative fuel infrastructure has also been insufficient. The initial costs for market-deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure are generally higher than for petroleum-based fuels due to i.a. the lack of initial economies of scale. Fuel suppliers (i.e. private spending) are investing in alternative fuels even if the revenue from fuel sold is not sufficient to pay back infrastructure and logistics costs.

The recently adopted White Paper "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System" announces that the Commission will develop "a sustainable alternative fuels strategy including also the appropriate infrastructure" (Initiative 24) and ensure "guidelines and standards for refuelling infrastructures" (Initiative 26).

Which is all jolly interesting, is it not? Bear with me, it gets better! From the White Paper:


Page 5 (16): Coherence at EU level is vital – a situation where (for example) one Member State opted exclusively for electric cars and another only for biofuels would destroy the concept of free travel across Europe.


Page 5 (19) New transport patterns must emerge, according to which larger volumes of freight and greater numbers of travellers are carried jointly to their destination by the most efficient (combination of) modes. Individual transport is preferably used for the final miles of the journey and performed with clean vehicles. Information technology provides for simpler and more reliable transfers. Transport users pay for the full costs of transport in exchange for less congestion, more information, better service and more safety. (Emphasis mine)


Page 6 (22) In the intermediate distances, new technologies are less mature and modal choices are fewer than in the city. However, this is where EU action can have the most immediate impact (fewer constraints from subsidiarity or international agreements). More resource-efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels are unlikely to achieve on their own the necessary cuts in emissions and they would not solve the problem of congestion. They need to be accompanied by the consolidation of large volumes for transfers over long distances. This implies greater use of buses and coaches, rail and air transport for passengers and, for freight, multimodal solutions relying on waterborne and rail modes for long-hauls. (Emphasis mine)


Page 8 (30) In cities, switching to cleaner transport is facilitated by the lower requirements for vehicle range and higher population density. Public transport choices are more widely available, as well as the option of walking and cycling. Cities suffer most from congestion, poor air quality and noise exposure. Urban transport is responsible for about a quarter of CO2 emissions from transport, and 69% of road accidents occur in cities. The gradual phasing out of ‘conventionally-fuelled’9 vehicles from the urban environment is a major contribution to significant reduction of oil dependence, greenhouse gas emissions and local air and noise pollution. It will have to be complemented by the development of appropriate fuelling/charging infrastructure for new vehicles. (Emphasis mine


Page 8 (31) A higher share of travel by collective transport, combined with minimum service obligations, will allow increasing the density and frequency of service, thereby generating a virtuous circle for public transport modes. Demand management and land-use planning can lower traffic volumes. Facilitating walking and cycling should become an integral part of urban mobility and infrastructure design (Emphasis mine)


Page 8 (32) The use of smaller, lighter and more specialised road passenger vehicles must be encouraged. Large fleets of urban buses, taxis and delivery vans are particularly suitable for the introduction of alternative propulsion systems and fuels. These could make a substantial contribution in reducing the carbon intensity of urban transport while providing a test bed for new technologies and opportunity for early market deployment. Road pricing and the removal of distortions in taxation can also assist in encouraging the use of public transport and the gradual introduction of alternative propulsion. (Emphasis mine)


I could continue, but I believe readers will be able to see that our travel is to be 'conditioned' to the extent of what form of public transport will be available and that which we may use; that we, the public, will be bearing the full cost; that any hope we had 'killed' the introduction of road pricing in this country is now but a dream; that private long-distance journeys may only be allowed at the discretion of the state (which makes a mockery of 'the free movement of people'); that the type of car we may be allowed to purchase will be limited to 'approved models, or else we will have a choice but the larger car will no doubt have a 'tax imposed so as to make it unavailable for the average person, etc etc.


The entire White Paper is well worth reading (in fact I would urge you so to do) because therein will be shown to you exactly that which is in store for every individual in the future, a future being mapped out by the 'elite' - and a choice on which you will not have. It is not illogical to assume that as they impose conditions on how an individual moves around and the methods from which a choice can be made - so this 'control' can be extended to the type of home you have; the food which you can eat; where you may travel; when and if you can smoke or consume alcohol; how many children may be raised, etc etc. 


You think I may be scaremongering? Has the last few years taught you, the public, anything? Nothing is more certain than that our own political elite are 'beavering away'laying the groundwork' for all this to happen. The other thing on which you can be certain is that none of the restrictions to be imposed on 'us' will apply to 'them'.


It is not for nothing the EU has been dubbed the EUSSR!

Chivers - Jam and Jelly?

We are, today, enlightened by an article in the Daily Telegraph on the subject of rail fare increases, an article authored by Tom Chivers, the Telegraph's assistant comment editor and who, we are informed, writes on science, culture and anything that crosses his mind. It has to be said that when and if anything crosses Chivers' mind it must do so fleetingly, if this article is an example. Perhaps the Telegraph's assistant comment editor is in need of a research assistant, one who might have the idea of using Google and inputting, for example, the phrase: 'eu user pays'?


Whilst the idea of 'user pays' is but at this stage, a proposal, it is a proposal that will be brought into force in the future and because of that it is certain that increases in rail fares will be much greater in the future - and that the suggestion there can be a reduction in rail fares, or any transport fares in the future, is but a dream. I have posted on transport, the user pays principle and the overriding subject of the Trans European Network - Transport, many times in the past - the most recent being here.


It is extremely frustrating that journalism, especially that exhibited in the piece under discussion, appears to believe in the principle of jam today, whilst the arguments and views put forward have the structural strength of jelly.

More 'airport' news......

Following my post yesterday on the matter of our airports, today comes a press release on the subject. and it will come as no surprise that the EU already exerts control on how we 'manage' our airports. I should, perhaps, have mentioned this aspect in the previous post, however I like to credit my readers with the fact they are, indeed, 'informed'. The video which the EU has produced to 'wow' the people of Europe, in the hope that they will accept all this 'harmonisation' in the areas of transport, has to be seen to be believed!

Readers will, of course, realise that this latest edict on airports will be carried out in order to further the harmonisation of 'practices' within the EU, thus enhancing the working of the single market. The problem is that, when considering Articles 4 and 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), it behoves me to repeat a question previously posed. Would anyone care to name one aspect of your life that is not - or will not be - affected by our membership of the European Union?

Well?

And our politicians 'govern' this country?

I put the question because if we can't control how our own damn airports operate, what can we control?*

First, from the Guardian of May 30, 2011:

"EU transport commissioner, Siim Kallas, said "We have been concerned that the current system of allocating takeoff and landing slots at airports is inefficient, giving rise to delays and congestion. "This has now been confirmed by today's report, showing that up to 28 million more passengers could travel ech year through Europe's airports." The commissioner said he intended to propose legislation this year to tackle the issue." 

Second, lo and behold, a press release, dated today, "Better Airports" which states:

"The European Commission today announced a comprehensive package of measures to help increase the capacity of Europe's airports, reduce delays and improve the quality of services offered to passengers. The measures address the quality of services passengers and airlines receive on the ground before they take off and after they land (for example, baggage handling, check-in, refuelling), the transparency of decisions on airport noise, as well as the efficiency of the complex network of take-off and landing slots that make up every journey."

* Don't even bother answering that rhetorical question, please! Because of the TEN-T 'programme, like HS2, this latest idea will be introduced no matter what 'noise' our pretend 'government' make, which will probably be on a par with the noise they made about the repatriation of powers! (see preceding post)

Know thy master........

Patrick Hennessy, another icon of 'journalism', writing in the Daily Telegraph reports on a 'last-ditch' attempt to de-rail HS2.

For someone who purports to be a 'Political Editor', should he not know that a 'comprehensive' strategy for transport, one including road, rail and air is, in fact, out of our hands? Just how many times do I have to point this out? Or this? And just what the hell does someone who qualified as an accountant, but who is obviously at a loss when being questioned on economics, know about chuff-chuffs?

And we plebs have to rely on Hennessy for news, someone who has 5,898 followers on Twitter, someone who obviously knows 'squat-diddly' about that which he 'writes'? Hell, he can't even confirm whether Greening, as Transport Secretary, will have cleared any agreement she may make with Siim Kallas*!

'Sheesh'! We are indeed being fed a load of 'Kebab'!

* And who is Siim Kallas? Just another 'political ladder climber', like Greening!

HS2 laid bare - Its an EU 'core' network!

The United Kingdom is being integrated within the European Union state in ways that are not publicized - and when they are, the EU element is hidden by our politicians. Two documents have come to light, ones that I do not recall being mentioned by our politicians, nor by the media - although I recognise that for the latter to notice anything that is not spoon-fed to them by their political 'contacts' is a step too far in logical thinking.

The first document I bring to your attention is a proposal by the EU Commission for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (COM (2011) 650/2). The second document is another proposal by the EU Commission for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (COM (2011) 665/3). I don't know about you, but I do not recall any mention of these two documents by our politicians or the media.

Within the programme being run by TEN-T (Trans European Network - Transport) it has been the aim of the European Union to create transport 'corridors' to speed the transportation of people and goods from one extreme of their 'empire' to the other. From COM 650/2 we learn that in the light of the challenges for the TEN-T policy, also identified by the White Paper 'Roadmap to a Single European Transport  Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system  ("the White Paper"), these Guidelines will define a long-term strategy for the TEN-T policy up to 2030/2050. We also learn that the proposal aims to establish and develop a complete TEN-T, consisting of infrastructure for railways, inland waterways, roads, maritime and air transport, thereby ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and strengthening economic and social cohesion. (Do note the last four words!) It has also been decide by the Commission that the TEN-T could be best developed through a dual-layer approach, consisting of a comprehensive network and a core network.

For those that wish to wade through the usual EU verbiage, please do, but the interesting 'facts' come on page 43 of the Connecting Europe Facility paper, where in noting 'core networks' we see listed none other than High Speed 2 in Core Network #8: Belfast – Dublin – Holyhead – Birmingham
Glasgow/Edinburgh – Birmingham  Birmingham – London – Lille – Brussel/Bruxelles
Dublin/Cork/Southampton – Le Havre – Paris London – Dover – Calais – Paris. Note also on page 39 Felixstowe/Birmingham/Liverpool also feature as a 'core' network. In fact what is also laid bare is that all the debate about connecting Heathrow to the London/Birmingham HS2 line, connecting Heathrow and Gatwick with a rail link is just a smokescreen as all transport plans/decisions are now being taken in Brussels - all our puppets in Westminster have to do is implement that which they are told.

When considering Cameron's posturing today, during the press conference following his meeting with Frau Merkel, coupled with his wish to 'reform' the EU, he should at least admit that if as a Head of State he can't even decide what rail line gets built where, he might just as well haul up the flag of surrender now. He and the rest of the seat warmers that inhabit Westminster are indeed Judas Goats, leading this nation into a subservience of rule from abroad and one can but paraphrase the words of Cromwell when saying to them: Go and go now!

Please, please, can we just get out now, massacre our political claque (at all levels); and start again with a blank sheet of paper. Please?

HS2 and related matters

HS2 has reared its head once again with the publication of another report by the Transport Select Committee, one which can be read here (click 'contents'). Writing on the TaxPayers' Alliance website, Matthew Sinclair writes of his views on this report and I have posted a few articles about HS2 here, here, here, and here.

In the first link to my previous articles I mentioned that the TPA seemed to forget the 'Elephant in the room', namely the European Union. Yet again I have to take issue when Matthew Sinclair states:

"They argue that new services on the current network could compensate for the reduction in services that places like Coventry and Stoke will face under the existing plans.  But don’t ask what the bill will be to subsidise those trains (it will take a substantial subsidy to maintain a regular service when most passengers to Birmingham and beyond travel on the new high speed line)"

Bearing in mind that in my last link I referred to the EU plan of 'user pays' (reported in the media by these two articles here and here) the question has to be asked: what subsidy?

The fact that Select Committees exist is, according to the Parliament website, to cover the work of every government department, the European Union, and cross-cutting issues such as human rights and the environment. Is not the influence of the EU and its transport policies a cross cutting issue and therefore why is it not mentioned?

It is depressing when those whose positions should allow them to draw attention to the EU influence on political decisions taken in this country fail so to do. Witness even an avowed anti-EU MP such as Gisela Stuart who tweets: "good report from Transport Committee. Let's get on with legislation for HS2 and get our economy moving" and yet like the Select Committee fails to mention the TEN-T influence and how, whilst a member of the EU, any government's transport policies can no longer be considered 'home-grown'.

If we are to have Select Committees then surely they should do the job for which they were created, namely to question government and to dissect their policies - because at the moment they look no more than another facade of the sham democratic system that presently exists.

The fact that our democratic system is well and truly fracked is illustrated by the fact that our political elite are able to propose policies that they know to be questionable to those they know to be idiots.

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.

Not the full story - again

The TaxPayers Alliance have released another research note on HS2, one in which they maintain that costs for HS2 could well rise by £28billion. On 27th July I posted what might be termed a reprimand of the TPA in which I accused them of ignoring the elephant in the room, needless to say that being the European Union. With this latest paper it is unfortunate that they are again guilty of the same error. Whilst the TPA are correct to concentrate on the economics angle I feel they are missing a few points in their analysis with some the assertions made, the reasons for which have not being fully explained. (I have posted previously on the subject of HS2, for example here, here, here and here.)

Whilst their research paper deals with what may be termed 'installation costs' they appear to have failed to actually analyse some statements that are quoted in their paper. For example:

Page 5: The TPA asserts that Ministers have argued that Britain must invest in high speed rail to keep pace with other countries, yet they make no attempt to de-bunk that statement for the lie that it is.

Page 6: Philip Hammond is quoted as stating that he hopes that competition amongst rail companies could mean cheaper fares.

Page 7: The TPA assert that fares across the network may well be raised to plug the black hole they allege in the cost of HS2.

The fact that Britain must invest in high speed rail is driven by the European Union and their Trans-European Network (Transport) policy, a policy built on the premise that travel for people and goods, from one region of the EU to another must be improved. The lie is that our need to invest in high speed rail is not a case of 'keeping up with the Jones' but that it is driven by requirements imposed on us by Brussels. There is one matter on the horizon that torpedoes the last two statements and that is the EU's policy, one in the pipeline for implementation, that 'user pays' and one that forbids any national government subsidy. This I covered here, a post which links to a story on user pays in the Mail. So Philip Hammond is being his usual disingenuous self by offering the carrot that fares could be cheaper, when he must know they won't and never can be; and the TPA, had they done their homework, would know that fares most definitely will be raised - and probably more than they believe - and it won't be just to plug their alleged black-hole.

That any government's rail policy in the UK is but a Pandora's Box with the hydra of the European Union within is amply illustrated by this piece of research by Ian Parker-Joseph. As he writes:

"UK Government railway policy - Or rather EU Railway policy studies that successive UK Governments (1999-2011) have sold to the British people as their own work. There are of course no vested interests…"

To which can now be added HS2................

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!