If one of my friends tells me that for one of their holidays they've decided to go on a cruise or rent a villa, or go to a hotel anywhere in the world my reaction would be positive and interested.
Yet, why is it that when anyone with a caravan mentions that they have one or are going away in it that they almost have to apologise for it?
In this enlightened day and age (although how enlightened we are when Radio 4 still has Thought For The Day on their Today programme) caravanners (of which I am one -- there, I said it) do have to tread carefully. Only the other day I was at a client's party and when caravans were mentioned I actually hesitated before I talked about 'our caravan' in relation to our holidays.
It's ridiculous that caravanning, which contributes significantly to the tourism industry (and is becoming more popular each year), is still seen in largely negative terms. There's snobbery at work, which I don't think you experience in many other countries. There's even snobbery between caravanners, which makes things worse. If you don't have the latest twin-axled palace hauled, at least by a Discovery 4, or a Range Rover you may as well head for Dale Farm.
Perhaps this is why going to France and other European countries is such a pleasure when you're in a caravan. I've been on many French sites and have seen that there is no issue with what you drive, what sort of caravan you have or what you do for a living. I have seen the better off next to those who clearly are less well off and yet there's still interaction between them. The French simply enjoy being outdoors and caravans give you exactly that: relaxing holidays in the fresh air where you can do as you please, not limited to the times that hotels decide to feed you.
Of course, the French have the weather -- part of the reason for heading abroad -- but it's the lack of snobbery that is almost palpable. There is money in France, of course, but it seems that if you have it you're far less likely to shout about it or drive something that tells everyone that you're doing alright.
The other problem in this country is that we have JC, yes Mr Jeremy Clarkson, who has destroyed more than his fair share of caravans on Top Gear. I have no problem that he doesn't like caravannig -- it isn't for everyone -- but why must he always take such childish, cliched pot-shots at something that thousands enjoy?
Well, I'm going to hide my secret no longer: the C-word will be on my lips the next time me and my friends discuss what we're doing for our holiday.
Vivre les caravanes!
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Derby to lose 1500 jobs
What a pity that Thameslink decided to choose Siemens for the £3bn contract to build 1,200 carriages for the new north-south cross-London route, which comes into service in 2015.
Ironically, rail minister Theresa Villiers said that the announcement of the new £3.5bn rail link was "...further proof of the government's commitment to investing in Britain's future." Hollow words for the 1,500 workers whose jobs will soon be hitting the buffers.
The decision to award the contract to a German manufacturer is hardly investing in Britain's future and the loss of the contract will raise questions about the future of Canadian-owned Bombardier's Derby manufacturing unit, the last train-building facility in the country.
Ms Villiers, in silk purse out of sow's ear mode, went on to explain that the taxpayer would get a better deal by offering the contract to Siemens. The rail minister also suggested that 2,000 jobs would still be created in the UK as a result of Siemens winning the contract. Clearly desperate to make a positive out of a negative Ms Villiers fails to recognise that the net benefit of the contract going abroad is just 500 new jobs and not the 2,000 that she suggested.
It is hard to imagine any other European country letting such a big fish escape; in France, for example, the TGV and the AGV (the replacement for the TGV) and the Eurostar series are all made by Alstom, a French multinational conglomerate.
But as they say in France: c'est la vie.
Ironically, rail minister Theresa Villiers said that the announcement of the new £3.5bn rail link was "...further proof of the government's commitment to investing in Britain's future." Hollow words for the 1,500 workers whose jobs will soon be hitting the buffers.
The decision to award the contract to a German manufacturer is hardly investing in Britain's future and the loss of the contract will raise questions about the future of Canadian-owned Bombardier's Derby manufacturing unit, the last train-building facility in the country.
Ms Villiers, in silk purse out of sow's ear mode, went on to explain that the taxpayer would get a better deal by offering the contract to Siemens. The rail minister also suggested that 2,000 jobs would still be created in the UK as a result of Siemens winning the contract. Clearly desperate to make a positive out of a negative Ms Villiers fails to recognise that the net benefit of the contract going abroad is just 500 new jobs and not the 2,000 that she suggested.
It is hard to imagine any other European country letting such a big fish escape; in France, for example, the TGV and the AGV (the replacement for the TGV) and the Eurostar series are all made by Alstom, a French multinational conglomerate.
But as they say in France: c'est la vie.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Do we have to believe in the Royal Family?
Over the last few years I have decided not to believe in a god and it is quite refreshing not to have to appease or appeal to an all-encompassing higher order.
Reading Dawkins' books, "The God Delusion" reinforced some of those hard-to-put-into-words thoughts and feelings about the idea of giving up on a deity that has been a part of most of your life.
This notion of an all-knowing god that both forgave sins but also punished sinners was quite a powerful image to carry around as I grew up. Going to Sunday School and evensong were boring rituals that my parents insisted on but I never really felt that I was connecting with anything other than my own thoughts. Perhaps that's all any god ever is: our inner voice questioning and doubting our every move.
As a teenager we stopped going to Sunday School and, following a move from the town where I was born, we stopped going to church as a family. By not going to church, however, our lives didn't descend into heathen chaos. No, the way our parents had brought us up, broadly along Christian principles, didn't disappear the moment our backs were turned, metaphorically, on the Church.
It was a relief not to have to go to a building to pray or sing or worship; at around the age of 18 I felt that I could thank God for every day if I was out in the coutryside rather than being in the confines of a building.
Over the next few years I can't really say how my faith changed, but there came one point when I simply couldn't accept the foundations of Christian belief: the virgin birth and the ressurrection. Without those two elements fixed in your psyche and you cannot be a Christian. From that point most other beliefs quickly fall away because you question everything else associated with Christianity. The Bible isn't the word of God it is the result of an editorial committee 300 years after the death of Jesus. I actually believe such a man existed, but that he was just that: a mortal man. Of course it was the Council of Nicaea that created the fiction of Jesus being the son of god, rather than a man who (many argue) married Mary Magdalene (who was anything but a prostitute). It is easy get all Dan Brown and see conspiracy everywhere in the Church, but the Church has been well served by Jesus.
But what has all this to do with our Royal Family?
There is a link between my lack of faith in deities and how we percieve a very fortunate family, and it is this: just as you don't have to believe in any god you don't need to believe in the Royals. Of course, unlike mystical beings, the Royals do exist and most do a good job in the confines of their limited roles.
I wouldn't necessarily follow our European counterparts and abolish the monarchy but perhaps it's just that we should have a cut-down Royal family that stands on its own financial feet.
The more you think about the privilege that they enjoy and just how disconnected they are from their subjects (not citizens, I'm afraid) then you can't help but question their existence.
Many supporters argue that they're great for tourism and that they work hard for the country, which is why we should keep them. Others argue that having a family as head of state is better than an elected head, such as Sarkozy or Berlusconi, but is that really enough of a reason not to change?
Of cours, we dabbled with Republicanism in the 1640s for about an hour or so, but we quickly restored the monarchy after getting rid of the upstart, Cromwell. Since then there have been various calls for their abolition but having witnessed the out-pourings of support for the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge it seems that we're nowhere near ready to collectively give up on that belief system just yet.
Reading Dawkins' books, "The God Delusion" reinforced some of those hard-to-put-into-words thoughts and feelings about the idea of giving up on a deity that has been a part of most of your life.
This notion of an all-knowing god that both forgave sins but also punished sinners was quite a powerful image to carry around as I grew up. Going to Sunday School and evensong were boring rituals that my parents insisted on but I never really felt that I was connecting with anything other than my own thoughts. Perhaps that's all any god ever is: our inner voice questioning and doubting our every move.
As a teenager we stopped going to Sunday School and, following a move from the town where I was born, we stopped going to church as a family. By not going to church, however, our lives didn't descend into heathen chaos. No, the way our parents had brought us up, broadly along Christian principles, didn't disappear the moment our backs were turned, metaphorically, on the Church.
It was a relief not to have to go to a building to pray or sing or worship; at around the age of 18 I felt that I could thank God for every day if I was out in the coutryside rather than being in the confines of a building.
Over the next few years I can't really say how my faith changed, but there came one point when I simply couldn't accept the foundations of Christian belief: the virgin birth and the ressurrection. Without those two elements fixed in your psyche and you cannot be a Christian. From that point most other beliefs quickly fall away because you question everything else associated with Christianity. The Bible isn't the word of God it is the result of an editorial committee 300 years after the death of Jesus. I actually believe such a man existed, but that he was just that: a mortal man. Of course it was the Council of Nicaea that created the fiction of Jesus being the son of god, rather than a man who (many argue) married Mary Magdalene (who was anything but a prostitute). It is easy get all Dan Brown and see conspiracy everywhere in the Church, but the Church has been well served by Jesus.
But what has all this to do with our Royal Family?
There is a link between my lack of faith in deities and how we percieve a very fortunate family, and it is this: just as you don't have to believe in any god you don't need to believe in the Royals. Of course, unlike mystical beings, the Royals do exist and most do a good job in the confines of their limited roles.
I wouldn't necessarily follow our European counterparts and abolish the monarchy but perhaps it's just that we should have a cut-down Royal family that stands on its own financial feet.
The more you think about the privilege that they enjoy and just how disconnected they are from their subjects (not citizens, I'm afraid) then you can't help but question their existence.
Many supporters argue that they're great for tourism and that they work hard for the country, which is why we should keep them. Others argue that having a family as head of state is better than an elected head, such as Sarkozy or Berlusconi, but is that really enough of a reason not to change?
Of cours, we dabbled with Republicanism in the 1640s for about an hour or so, but we quickly restored the monarchy after getting rid of the upstart, Cromwell. Since then there have been various calls for their abolition but having witnessed the out-pourings of support for the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge it seems that we're nowhere near ready to collectively give up on that belief system just yet.
Friday, March 25, 2011
CAN'T WAIT, WON'T WAIT
As I sit typing this post in a Starbucks, whilst having a gallon of coffee (their choice, not mine) and an almond croissant, I overhear a conversation between a young mum and, I assume, her mum. As the mother sits with her white iPhone clamped to her ear the conversation (at least the bit I can hear) goes something like this: "... I left a message on your phone and wanted to make sure that you'd got it, so that's why I'm calling, I didn't know if you had received the message..."
Surely, the whole point of leaving a message is because you couldn't get hold the person you were hoping to converse with. You don't need to check that they received the message, otherwise you wouldn't leave a message and you would try again later.
The young mum in question went on to tell the relative how much their daughter had enjoyed going on one of the rides adjacent to the coffee house, whilst the 3- or 4-year-old sat on her own dribbling onto her sandwich. How important was that piece of information? Should I call my father when I have had a wash or issues a new press release for a client? No, of course not.
The problem with mobile phones, and mobile internet for that matter, is that we're all compelled to use these gadgets simply because we can. I remember when I got my first mobile phone and couldn't wait for it to ring; it didn't so I called someone, just because I could. In the early 90s there were few who had mobiles so it was very unlikely to have been called, especially as so many were worried about the perceived cost. At least when it as £5-a-minute (well 50p, I exaggerate) you only made the most urgent of calls. Now, with free talktime on offer it makes sense to try to use up your 6 gazillion free minutes talking absolute bollocks. Unless you work in the evening phone call trade, shall we call it, when you really are paid to talk about such matters (and probably paying £5/minute).
The same problem happens with e-mails. You send one and you sit their expecting an instantaneous reply. Why? What is it about having to have an instant response. You don't receive a postcard or letter and send a response back within minutes of receiving it, so why just because of a flashing icon on your screen?
No wonder that so much time is wasted on nonsense calls and e-mails checking to see if you have received an e-mail; or acknowledging that you have received an e-mail.
It is time to end this instant response mania, for surely it is becoming a mental problem (can I say 'mental' anymore?) for us to feel the need to respond within seconds of receiving a message.
At least I am wrtiting this in my lunchbreak between meetings, so at least these 10 minutes have not cost the economy a bean.
Surely, the whole point of leaving a message is because you couldn't get hold the person you were hoping to converse with. You don't need to check that they received the message, otherwise you wouldn't leave a message and you would try again later.
The young mum in question went on to tell the relative how much their daughter had enjoyed going on one of the rides adjacent to the coffee house, whilst the 3- or 4-year-old sat on her own dribbling onto her sandwich. How important was that piece of information? Should I call my father when I have had a wash or issues a new press release for a client? No, of course not.
The problem with mobile phones, and mobile internet for that matter, is that we're all compelled to use these gadgets simply because we can. I remember when I got my first mobile phone and couldn't wait for it to ring; it didn't so I called someone, just because I could. In the early 90s there were few who had mobiles so it was very unlikely to have been called, especially as so many were worried about the perceived cost. At least when it as £5-a-minute (well 50p, I exaggerate) you only made the most urgent of calls. Now, with free talktime on offer it makes sense to try to use up your 6 gazillion free minutes talking absolute bollocks. Unless you work in the evening phone call trade, shall we call it, when you really are paid to talk about such matters (and probably paying £5/minute).
The same problem happens with e-mails. You send one and you sit their expecting an instantaneous reply. Why? What is it about having to have an instant response. You don't receive a postcard or letter and send a response back within minutes of receiving it, so why just because of a flashing icon on your screen?
No wonder that so much time is wasted on nonsense calls and e-mails checking to see if you have received an e-mail; or acknowledging that you have received an e-mail.
It is time to end this instant response mania, for surely it is becoming a mental problem (can I say 'mental' anymore?) for us to feel the need to respond within seconds of receiving a message.
At least I am wrtiting this in my lunchbreak between meetings, so at least these 10 minutes have not cost the economy a bean.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Chasing Ratings or Securing Oil Supplies
Whilst it is wonderful to live in a free country and to enjoy the democratic right to vote (irrespective of how powerful a single vote actually is) I would question the right of the West (with some Arab states) to interfere with the internal issues of a sovereign country, in this case I refer to Libya.
Colonel Gaddafi is no saint, but neither is Mugabe (and he's still in power), and it isn't good that he's attacking his own people; but, it is their country and they make the rules no matter how unpleasant we may view those rules. We might snipe from the sidelines about Gaddafi's despotic behaviour but it wasn't many years ago that everyman and his dog were lining up to do business with this reformed character. Blair, I seem to remember, led the charge and in the wake of the West's softening policy towards Libya much business has been done (and we do need his oil).
Indeed, I have an oil industry client who would be doing business with other such countries if it wasn't for the sanctions that make trade with Libya and Iran illegal. There must be hundreds of companies in the UK that are desperate for those contracts, which will go to other countries where there is no trade embargo.
That aside, I think what really stuck in my craw was when I heard Cameron talk about the need for urgent military action against Gaddafi and that if we leave him alone he will threaten not only UK security but world security! Where have we heard that before? The only time in recent years when military action was needed was the Falklands and possibly in the Balkans; other than that it seems that our presence (occupation) in other counties is actually feeding anti-western feelings that will put the UK in harms way and not vice versa as our politicians have us believe.
Looking at things cynically, this is fantastic opportunity for Cameron so that he can show that he is truly a world "stateman" (as Blair before who revelled in the war-mongering rhetoric), but what a pity it is always conflict that politicians like to associate themselves with in order to prove their statemanship. It is certainly disingenuous to start referring to Libya as a failed pariah state, especially, as mentioned above, following Blair's cosying up to trade with Libya.
As Churchill allegedly stated in 1954 (the words were spoken in private and so were never actually verified): “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war”.
I can't say that I have a solution to this crisis, but seeing burned-out buses and cars on bombed highways in Libya and you can imagine that the rebel's support for the no-fly zones will soon turn to anger as the death toll of innocent civilians begins to rise.
At that point everyone might stop and see if we can't "jaw-jaw" for a change.
Colonel Gaddafi is no saint, but neither is Mugabe (and he's still in power), and it isn't good that he's attacking his own people; but, it is their country and they make the rules no matter how unpleasant we may view those rules. We might snipe from the sidelines about Gaddafi's despotic behaviour but it wasn't many years ago that everyman and his dog were lining up to do business with this reformed character. Blair, I seem to remember, led the charge and in the wake of the West's softening policy towards Libya much business has been done (and we do need his oil).
Indeed, I have an oil industry client who would be doing business with other such countries if it wasn't for the sanctions that make trade with Libya and Iran illegal. There must be hundreds of companies in the UK that are desperate for those contracts, which will go to other countries where there is no trade embargo.
That aside, I think what really stuck in my craw was when I heard Cameron talk about the need for urgent military action against Gaddafi and that if we leave him alone he will threaten not only UK security but world security! Where have we heard that before? The only time in recent years when military action was needed was the Falklands and possibly in the Balkans; other than that it seems that our presence (occupation) in other counties is actually feeding anti-western feelings that will put the UK in harms way and not vice versa as our politicians have us believe.
Looking at things cynically, this is fantastic opportunity for Cameron so that he can show that he is truly a world "stateman" (as Blair before who revelled in the war-mongering rhetoric), but what a pity it is always conflict that politicians like to associate themselves with in order to prove their statemanship. It is certainly disingenuous to start referring to Libya as a failed pariah state, especially, as mentioned above, following Blair's cosying up to trade with Libya.
As Churchill allegedly stated in 1954 (the words were spoken in private and so were never actually verified): “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war”.
I can't say that I have a solution to this crisis, but seeing burned-out buses and cars on bombed highways in Libya and you can imagine that the rebel's support for the no-fly zones will soon turn to anger as the death toll of innocent civilians begins to rise.
At that point everyone might stop and see if we can't "jaw-jaw" for a change.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Be Careful WIth The C-Word
When presenters of Top Gear ever mention the c-word, you know you're in for a bit of fun; of course I refer to the word "caravan" and not the shorter Anglo-Saxon word that you were expecting.
The last time the three kidults went out in a caravan they "accidentally" set fire to it so that they could produce a memorable closing sequence: a car towing a smouldering caravan chassis. Amusing? Yes; hilarious really, but the messages are clear: caravans are their to be mocked, even hated.
As someone who has a caravan I can actually see the funny side of Clarkson's japes, childish and predictable as they are. The sad reality is that he doesn't want to understand what it is that caravans give you or to see just how much fun a holiday in your home-on-wheels can be.
But as much as I don't like the idea of having the fun poked at something that me and my family enjoy, you can see exactly how some of those who have caravans do give the rest of us a bad name. It's not just the matching fleeces, from the Edinburgh Woollen Mill (of course), it is the air of seriousness, general unfriendliness (rarely to you get a "good day") and that many caravanners seem to revel in the site rules. On too many sites there are the locked toilet and shower blocks, and frequently the "no ball games" signs littering the site. Just who are the site owners trying to deter? Football playing families that have no access to hot water, clearly.
Now, I enjoy a peaceful campsite with clean facilities, but we go caravanning for some freedom and sense of getting away from it all.
Take you caravan to Europe and everything changes.
In France, which is where we have taken our caravan since 2008, there is no issue with caravanners; you get the "bonjours" from complete strangers on the site or in the local towns and you have mixed shower and toilet blocks that aren't locked.
You meet people from all walks of life and you don't get the gleaming pumped-up Discoverys on steroids; most cars on French campsites are regular hatchbacks, MPVs and saloons. You could be next to a company director, a fireman or cleaner, but there is no real sense of social division. But of course France is much more egalitarian than our class-ridden society where integration between the have-nots and have-lots just doesn't happen.
Caravanning isn't about the latest 'van and accessories, it is about the opportunity to explore areas away from the confines of package holidays; it is about enjoying a simpler life and mixing with people and it is about relaxing and unwinding.
Clarkson and his type won't ever understand the enjoyment of caravanning and that's fine, but surely it's live and let live; I don't enjoy package holidays but many do; I'm not a fan of the idea of a cruise (I have never been on one) but they're increasingly popular. At least don't criticise what others do and neither should Clarkson.
I am looking forward to our next expedition with our caravan: a trip to the Alps later this year; we'll be in an area that enjoys 300 days of sun a year, with temperatures in the summer months as high as we enjoyed in the Charente-Maritime (high 20s).
The great thing about caravans is that the moment you hook-up your unit you are already on holiday; there's no checking in at airports and no worries about the weight of your suitcases.
As for the return trip: you have plenty of room to stash all that fabulous wine.
The last time the three kidults went out in a caravan they "accidentally" set fire to it so that they could produce a memorable closing sequence: a car towing a smouldering caravan chassis. Amusing? Yes; hilarious really, but the messages are clear: caravans are their to be mocked, even hated.
As someone who has a caravan I can actually see the funny side of Clarkson's japes, childish and predictable as they are. The sad reality is that he doesn't want to understand what it is that caravans give you or to see just how much fun a holiday in your home-on-wheels can be.
But as much as I don't like the idea of having the fun poked at something that me and my family enjoy, you can see exactly how some of those who have caravans do give the rest of us a bad name. It's not just the matching fleeces, from the Edinburgh Woollen Mill (of course), it is the air of seriousness, general unfriendliness (rarely to you get a "good day") and that many caravanners seem to revel in the site rules. On too many sites there are the locked toilet and shower blocks, and frequently the "no ball games" signs littering the site. Just who are the site owners trying to deter? Football playing families that have no access to hot water, clearly.
Campsite in the Haute-Savoie on the shores of Lac Bourget, France
Now, I enjoy a peaceful campsite with clean facilities, but we go caravanning for some freedom and sense of getting away from it all.
Take you caravan to Europe and everything changes.
In France, which is where we have taken our caravan since 2008, there is no issue with caravanners; you get the "bonjours" from complete strangers on the site or in the local towns and you have mixed shower and toilet blocks that aren't locked.
You meet people from all walks of life and you don't get the gleaming pumped-up Discoverys on steroids; most cars on French campsites are regular hatchbacks, MPVs and saloons. You could be next to a company director, a fireman or cleaner, but there is no real sense of social division. But of course France is much more egalitarian than our class-ridden society where integration between the have-nots and have-lots just doesn't happen.
Caravanning isn't about the latest 'van and accessories, it is about the opportunity to explore areas away from the confines of package holidays; it is about enjoying a simpler life and mixing with people and it is about relaxing and unwinding.
Clarkson and his type won't ever understand the enjoyment of caravanning and that's fine, but surely it's live and let live; I don't enjoy package holidays but many do; I'm not a fan of the idea of a cruise (I have never been on one) but they're increasingly popular. At least don't criticise what others do and neither should Clarkson.
I am looking forward to our next expedition with our caravan: a trip to the Alps later this year; we'll be in an area that enjoys 300 days of sun a year, with temperatures in the summer months as high as we enjoyed in the Charente-Maritime (high 20s).
The great thing about caravans is that the moment you hook-up your unit you are already on holiday; there's no checking in at airports and no worries about the weight of your suitcases.
As for the return trip: you have plenty of room to stash all that fabulous wine.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Fuelling inflation
At what point does any government decide that they're taking enough from the motorist who has to pay increasing sums to fill the fuel tank? Judging by recent increases in both VAT and fuel duty the ConLib alliance remains blissfully unaware of the impact at the pumps.
For millions of hard-working families, recently referred to by Cleggers as "alarm clock Britain" (what a ridiculous phrase), who are now paying around £70 to fill up, the cost of getting to work is increasing at rates way above inflation. The irony is that the cost of fuel is, er, fuelling the inflation that the Bank of England is keen to tame. The likely outcome is that interest rates will be heading up; we can almost here Bruce Forsyth (in Play Your Cards Right mode) asking if it's going to be higher or lower than 0.5% I think the studio audience would be screaming at the hapless contestant: "Higher, higher, higher".
When we remember that the cost of fuel is only 42p per litre we can see exactly why governments quite like having millions of cars on the road; every mile you drive and you're sending money to the government at the rate of almost £1.00 per litre. If your vehicle does 30 miles per gallon you're dropping around 13p per miles to the government. If you do 10,000 miles per year, yep that's right, £1,300.00 in tax that you simply cannot avoid.
So, whilst governments are keen to be seen to be caring for the environment they actually don't want to reduce the easy money that we motorists provide -- and that we provide so willingly. If governments are so keen to be green, why are they spending soooo much money on widening our motorways that will encourage more traffic? It also explains why they're so slow at re-opening Beeching's closed railway lines (closed by Marples, who happened to be a director of a road-building company) or why they won't electrify the whole network. Indeed, previous governments have actually looked at the impact that new rail lines will have on the motoriing public; if too many drivers might switch to rail and, therefore, reduce tax revenue from driving, they would not open the line.
It is time for the government to stop fleecing the motorist and work towards a properly joined-up transport network.
For millions of hard-working families, recently referred to by Cleggers as "alarm clock Britain" (what a ridiculous phrase), who are now paying around £70 to fill up, the cost of getting to work is increasing at rates way above inflation. The irony is that the cost of fuel is, er, fuelling the inflation that the Bank of England is keen to tame. The likely outcome is that interest rates will be heading up; we can almost here Bruce Forsyth (in Play Your Cards Right mode) asking if it's going to be higher or lower than 0.5% I think the studio audience would be screaming at the hapless contestant: "Higher, higher, higher".
When we remember that the cost of fuel is only 42p per litre we can see exactly why governments quite like having millions of cars on the road; every mile you drive and you're sending money to the government at the rate of almost £1.00 per litre. If your vehicle does 30 miles per gallon you're dropping around 13p per miles to the government. If you do 10,000 miles per year, yep that's right, £1,300.00 in tax that you simply cannot avoid.
So, whilst governments are keen to be seen to be caring for the environment they actually don't want to reduce the easy money that we motorists provide -- and that we provide so willingly. If governments are so keen to be green, why are they spending soooo much money on widening our motorways that will encourage more traffic? It also explains why they're so slow at re-opening Beeching's closed railway lines (closed by Marples, who happened to be a director of a road-building company) or why they won't electrify the whole network. Indeed, previous governments have actually looked at the impact that new rail lines will have on the motoriing public; if too many drivers might switch to rail and, therefore, reduce tax revenue from driving, they would not open the line.
It is time for the government to stop fleecing the motorist and work towards a properly joined-up transport network.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
FLASHER LANDS IN COURT
Has the Lincolnshire Constabulary really got nothing better to do than to waste court time (and tax-payers' money) prosecuting motorist Michael Thompson for a minor infringement of the law?
Apparently, the answer is 'no', they don't have anything better to do. Now, we have a situation in which a law-abiding member of the public has a criminal record all because he flashed his car's headlights to warn other motorists that they're heading towards a Police 'safety camera' (aka money-spinning speed trap).
The reason why most motorists, the writer included, warn other motorists of speed traps is because they are frequently cynically placed to do nothing more than to generate revenue; they don't have much to do with safety and with the cut-backs starting to bite we can all expect to see more of these mobile money-spinners springing up on a road near you.
In my region, rural Derbyshire, so many of the main trunk roads have had their speed limits reduced from the national speed limit to 50 mph, accompanied by the condescending statement: "It's 50 for a reason" (and we now know what that reason i$!). A case in point is the A515 from Buxton to Ashbourne, which had it's speed limit reduced to 50 mph.
The argument for reducing speed limits is to reduce the number of crashes or fatalities; having travelled along this road for several years I can't tell you the last time I saw a crash. Now, if you keep to 50 mph you often get stuck behind lorries and tractors, and to overtake you have to break the law, which is a complete nonsense.
The A610 that links Codnor to the edge of Nottingham, on the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border, allows you to do 70 mph and then just before a long incline, and still miles away from pedestrians, the speed limit reduced to 50 mph and as you approach the roundabout where the A610 meets junction 26 of the M1, it is reduced to 40 mph.
There must be hundreds of examples from around the country with nonsensical speed limits. The irony is that on narrow country lanes you can tear along at 60 mph when the limit perhaps ought to be lower; but there's not enough traffic on country lanes to make it worth trying to enforce a sensible speed limit. The same goes for villages where often the speed limit is 30 mph (as it should be) but motorists hurtle through.
I am not a fan of speed cameras but I believe they should be deployed where motorists ought to know better, but on the open road the speed limits should be set higher.
As for the motorways, when will we be allowed to catch up with our Continental cousins and travel at 80 mph?
Apparently, the answer is 'no', they don't have anything better to do. Now, we have a situation in which a law-abiding member of the public has a criminal record all because he flashed his car's headlights to warn other motorists that they're heading towards a Police 'safety camera' (aka money-spinning speed trap).
The reason why most motorists, the writer included, warn other motorists of speed traps is because they are frequently cynically placed to do nothing more than to generate revenue; they don't have much to do with safety and with the cut-backs starting to bite we can all expect to see more of these mobile money-spinners springing up on a road near you.
In my region, rural Derbyshire, so many of the main trunk roads have had their speed limits reduced from the national speed limit to 50 mph, accompanied by the condescending statement: "It's 50 for a reason" (and we now know what that reason i$!). A case in point is the A515 from Buxton to Ashbourne, which had it's speed limit reduced to 50 mph.
The argument for reducing speed limits is to reduce the number of crashes or fatalities; having travelled along this road for several years I can't tell you the last time I saw a crash. Now, if you keep to 50 mph you often get stuck behind lorries and tractors, and to overtake you have to break the law, which is a complete nonsense.
The A610 that links Codnor to the edge of Nottingham, on the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border, allows you to do 70 mph and then just before a long incline, and still miles away from pedestrians, the speed limit reduced to 50 mph and as you approach the roundabout where the A610 meets junction 26 of the M1, it is reduced to 40 mph.
There must be hundreds of examples from around the country with nonsensical speed limits. The irony is that on narrow country lanes you can tear along at 60 mph when the limit perhaps ought to be lower; but there's not enough traffic on country lanes to make it worth trying to enforce a sensible speed limit. The same goes for villages where often the speed limit is 30 mph (as it should be) but motorists hurtle through.
I am not a fan of speed cameras but I believe they should be deployed where motorists ought to know better, but on the open road the speed limits should be set higher.
As for the motorways, when will we be allowed to catch up with our Continental cousins and travel at 80 mph?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)