Ripp-Ed Off

Ed Miliband has 'been speaking to the Daily Telegraph', so we are informed by Robert Winnett and Mary Riddell, at least according to the print edition. MilibandE states we have to call time on the surcharge culture; that it is about rules that government set; that car parking charges at railway stations should be capped, along with season tickets and other fares; that on bank charges a new watchdog should have the power to intervene and outlaw excessive fees.


If it is time to take action on the surcharge culture perhaps a start could be made with the public subsidy for food and drink in the Palace of Westminster, perhaps a start could be made with the public subsidy paid to employ what are not even second-rate politicians.


If season ticket and other fares are to be capped, perhaps MilibandE would like to publicly state that, should by some quirk of fate he became Prime Minister, he will not impose the 'user-pays' principle when it is introduced by the European Union?


At a time when it is generally accepted that the public sector is bloated and needs trimming, in true socialist fashion all MilibandE can suggest is yet another watchdog be created, one funded by the public.


Lastly - and most importantly - MilibandE states that ultimately its about the rules government sets - err, what?! So in electing a political party based on a piece of incomplete fiction (they call it a mandate), one that only contains broad outlines of policy, we get dictated to by rules government set? And people say we do not live under a democratised dictatorship?


And this idiot wants to end the rip-off of the public when the greatest rip-off merchants are the section of our society of which he is a member!

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 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!