Tuesday 5th January 2009 - which means that for 4 days commuters, travellers, businesses and visitors to Wales have had to fork out yet more money to do business within Wales and beyond. I was talking to someone today who told me that they could recall paying the princely sum of twelve and half pence to cross the old Severn Bridge in the mid 1970's - what price the £5.50 per car we pay today.
Looking beyond the immediate teeth grinding impact of yet another annual increase in the Severn bridge tolls, there is another issue – one that is beginning to become worth considering, what’s going to happen in 2014, when it has been estimated that the PFI contract will have been covered by toll receipts. Who actually is going to own the bridge (or bridges) and will they stop collecting the tolls?
If not then the bridge (or bridges) sit on the border - but the toll on the newer bridge is collected in Wales, the older one being collected in England - so will the bridge and the tolls simply revert back to the Department of transport? Or if perchance it comes down to the National Assembly, by default or as a result of central government indifference, then does the National Assembly act as merely an agent for the Department of Transport or does it end up with a measure of a degree of freedom of action?
With that thought in mind, what choices could be made - something that might be worth considering is that if the current tolls were halved then, what could be accomplished by using a percentage of the remaining toll fees to cover ongoing maintenance of the bridge and what could be accomplished by using the remainder of the toll for ring fenced capital projects – such as new integrated transport systems, reopening railway lines, funding tram systems and investing in rail freight – which would be far more beneficial for all of us in Wales than any of the future toll fees disappearing into the Westminster coffers merely to help to bail out the bankers?
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Monday, 4 January 2010
HAVING IT BOTH WAYS!
Now it used to be said that you could not have it both ways - unless of course you are a private railway company. When it's convenient for the Rail Companies, they compare their annual price rises with predicted inflation, whereas a year ago, when inflation was on its way down, they compared their price rises with the previous year's inflation.
In reality what they should be doing, is comparing their price rises with last July's inflation which was minus 1.4%. This is about blatantly lining the rail company’s pockets at tax payers and rail passenger’s expense. On average UK train fares are already some 20% higher than the European average and if the UK Government is serious about reducing road congestion then it needs to urgently review the way that rail fares are regulated.
The Association of Train Operating Companies (AToC) faced criticism in early 2009 for failing to itemize each train company's average unregulated fares rise. However, some companies revealed their fare increases; Virgin Trains increased unregulated fares by an average of 2.8%, ScotRail's fares rose by 3%, and turn-up-and-go fares on Southern trains rose by 4% and the Southeastern train company’s unregulated fares rose by 7.3% and other fares rose by 2.8%. A number of companies, including National Express East Anglia, First Capital Connect, TransPennine Express and Merseyrail have frozen their unregulated fares.
As tax payers it is worth remembering that the private rail companies are receiving approximately some £ 5billion per year from the taxpayers, so there can be little justification for rail companies having the right to increase rail fares every year by inflation plus.
The real question is why rail passengers should have to pay higher fares regardless of the quality of service they receive, with UK rail passengers currently facing fares that are twenty percent higher than those paid by our European neighbours.
It’s time to face facts, to most people it is pretty clear that the privatised rail experiment has failed, it’s time to re-unify our rail service and to bring the rail services back under responsible public ownership where service and efficiency comes before profit at passengers expense.
In reality what they should be doing, is comparing their price rises with last July's inflation which was minus 1.4%. This is about blatantly lining the rail company’s pockets at tax payers and rail passenger’s expense. On average UK train fares are already some 20% higher than the European average and if the UK Government is serious about reducing road congestion then it needs to urgently review the way that rail fares are regulated.
The Association of Train Operating Companies (AToC) faced criticism in early 2009 for failing to itemize each train company's average unregulated fares rise. However, some companies revealed their fare increases; Virgin Trains increased unregulated fares by an average of 2.8%, ScotRail's fares rose by 3%, and turn-up-and-go fares on Southern trains rose by 4% and the Southeastern train company’s unregulated fares rose by 7.3% and other fares rose by 2.8%. A number of companies, including National Express East Anglia, First Capital Connect, TransPennine Express and Merseyrail have frozen their unregulated fares.
As tax payers it is worth remembering that the private rail companies are receiving approximately some £ 5billion per year from the taxpayers, so there can be little justification for rail companies having the right to increase rail fares every year by inflation plus.
The real question is why rail passengers should have to pay higher fares regardless of the quality of service they receive, with UK rail passengers currently facing fares that are twenty percent higher than those paid by our European neighbours.
It’s time to face facts, to most people it is pretty clear that the privatised rail experiment has failed, it’s time to re-unify our rail service and to bring the rail services back under responsible public ownership where service and efficiency comes before profit at passengers expense.
Sunday, 3 January 2010
CAMERON'S LEGACY AND INHERITANCE
With David Cameron's Conservatives already (allegedly) thinking out loud about Tory 'legacy projects' before then even win the next Westminster election - they might do well to actually win the election first before planning their legacy. The electorate might do well to think about what they (the Tories) left us the least time they were in Government before casting a vote for the boys and girls in blue.
A growing economy (admittedly one built on questionable credit and even more questionable expansion of the banking sector) - ironically this fact was something which had scant impact with voters and did little to help the Conservatives avoid an electoral hammering in England and Conservative and effective electoral extermination in Wales and Scotland.
A privatised railway system - something which benefited the few at the expense of the many - New Labour had little problem with a privatised railway system, going so far as to say that if it had not been privatised then they (New Labour) would have privatised it themselves.
One thing they (the Tories) won't make much of is the privatisation of the old building societies - which following their disappearance into the larger financial institutions helped contribute in the longer term to the financial mess that we are all paying for at the moment (and for the foreseeable future).
Privatised utilities - a real Tory legacy - the whole process of privatisation can best be described as 'the age of pillage' - when a Tory clique (and their friends in the city) helped themselves at our expense when it came to plundering the assets of the state for a quick short term profit.
The dash for gas - which led to the rapid development and rapid use and decline of a priceless assets, which has left the UK dependent upon imported gas from questionable suppliers in potentially unstable regions of the world.
The damage done to the British Army was accelerated by Jon Major's 'Options for Change' - which was in turn driven by a Conservative Government hastily trying to cash in on the 'peace dividend' following the end of the Cold War.
The NHS...hopspital borne infections, and 'an internal market' within the Health Service, PFI (which has been happily and expensively continued by New Labour) enough said...
Cameron's legacy may (if elected) consist of another bail out for the banks, war with Iran and the quiet ditching of electorally useful green Tory tinge...and more sleaze...
Roll on Polling day...
A growing economy (admittedly one built on questionable credit and even more questionable expansion of the banking sector) - ironically this fact was something which had scant impact with voters and did little to help the Conservatives avoid an electoral hammering in England and Conservative and effective electoral extermination in Wales and Scotland.
A privatised railway system - something which benefited the few at the expense of the many - New Labour had little problem with a privatised railway system, going so far as to say that if it had not been privatised then they (New Labour) would have privatised it themselves.
One thing they (the Tories) won't make much of is the privatisation of the old building societies - which following their disappearance into the larger financial institutions helped contribute in the longer term to the financial mess that we are all paying for at the moment (and for the foreseeable future).
Privatised utilities - a real Tory legacy - the whole process of privatisation can best be described as 'the age of pillage' - when a Tory clique (and their friends in the city) helped themselves at our expense when it came to plundering the assets of the state for a quick short term profit.
The dash for gas - which led to the rapid development and rapid use and decline of a priceless assets, which has left the UK dependent upon imported gas from questionable suppliers in potentially unstable regions of the world.
The damage done to the British Army was accelerated by Jon Major's 'Options for Change' - which was in turn driven by a Conservative Government hastily trying to cash in on the 'peace dividend' following the end of the Cold War.
The NHS...hopspital borne infections, and 'an internal market' within the Health Service, PFI (which has been happily and expensively continued by New Labour) enough said...
Cameron's legacy may (if elected) consist of another bail out for the banks, war with Iran and the quiet ditching of electorally useful green Tory tinge...and more sleaze...
Roll on Polling day...
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
PAYING FOR IT...
Now that Christmas is passing, we can begin to think about the possibilities of the New Year and how we are going to pay for the old one. This time of year people are under considerable pressure to spend more money than they can afford, the situation has worsened due to the current economic climate. People need to think very carefully about where they get credit from, especially during difficult economic times, people may be tempted by disreputable lenders such as doorstep lenders and loan sharks who could lead people into uncontrollable levels of debt.
Debt is a serious issue, and unmanageable debt can have far reaching consequences in terms of family life and mental health and is something that can affect people across every urban and rural community. It is important that people in serious debt don’t feel isolated as this can make them more vulnerable to the exploitation of loan sharks and other disreputable lenders. To avoid any trouble with disreputable lenders seek help immediately from the police or the Citizen’s Advice Bureau as the lender may well have behaved illegally.
The Plaid driven Welsh government is committed to the establishment and development of credit unions, as a form of social enterprise, in all parts of Wales. So far the One Wales government has achieved all-Wales coverage of Credit Unions, has established access for secondary pupils and helping credit unions to offer more Child Trust Fund accounts. Credit Unions have a hugely important role to play, offering, not just affordable credit but also valuable advice on budgeting.
The New Labour Government has not done enough to tackle doorstep lenders and loan sharks. We need to look at other ways of protecting vulnerable people in debt. Plaid Cymru has campaigned in Westminster for a cap on interest charged by lenders. This would be an invaluable tool in tackling problems with doorstep lenders and loan sharks and Plaid will continue to campaign for this and any other means of tackling the problem of disreputable lenders.
Debt is a serious issue, and unmanageable debt can have far reaching consequences in terms of family life and mental health and is something that can affect people across every urban and rural community. It is important that people in serious debt don’t feel isolated as this can make them more vulnerable to the exploitation of loan sharks and other disreputable lenders. To avoid any trouble with disreputable lenders seek help immediately from the police or the Citizen’s Advice Bureau as the lender may well have behaved illegally.
The Plaid driven Welsh government is committed to the establishment and development of credit unions, as a form of social enterprise, in all parts of Wales. So far the One Wales government has achieved all-Wales coverage of Credit Unions, has established access for secondary pupils and helping credit unions to offer more Child Trust Fund accounts. Credit Unions have a hugely important role to play, offering, not just affordable credit but also valuable advice on budgeting.
The New Labour Government has not done enough to tackle doorstep lenders and loan sharks. We need to look at other ways of protecting vulnerable people in debt. Plaid Cymru has campaigned in Westminster for a cap on interest charged by lenders. This would be an invaluable tool in tackling problems with doorstep lenders and loan sharks and Plaid will continue to campaign for this and any other means of tackling the problem of disreputable lenders.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
The award of funding to help sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to diversify and improve their Post Offices is most welcome. In Monouthshire Usk, Caldicot and Magor post offices were 3 out of the 75 post offices across Wales to be awarded grants from the Post Office Diversification Fund. Most people and most political parties recognise that Post Offices play a vital roll at the heart of their communities and are real lifelines to vulnerable people.
The Post Office Diversification Fund is planned to run for three years and has been set up to offer help and advice with advertising, marketing, business advice, training and setting up new services for customers. The fund can also help with improving access, security and upgrading computer equipment, etc. This is the One Wales Government helping to deliver improvements to important services in our communities, which makes a pleasant change by way of comparison with recent Westminster Governments.
With a Westminster election pending, it is worth remembering that while the Post Office Closure Programme has always been Westminster driven and a non devolved matter enough voices of concern were raised in Wales to make the National Assembly listen. Despite the fact that local Labour MP's in Caerphilly (Wayne David) and Newport East (Jessica Morden) said one thing about the closure programme but voted for it in Westminster and hoped that no one would notice - oops! there were a number of successful local campaigns to keep their post offices.
The cold reality is that since 1997, the New Labour Government has ensured that less and less services can be provided through the post office network and has deliberately sought to undermine these vital small businesses; by taking away important income streams such as television licence and the processing of benefits and pension entitlement. The New Labour Government merely followed the policy of its Conservative predecessor by going out of its way to systematically undermine the Post Office Network by making it practically impossible for sub postmasters to earn a living, and forcing them to close their businesses. New Labour came to power in 1997, since then some 4,000 Post offices have been closed, and some 3,000 Post offices were closed by the previous Conservative administration.
When Polling Day comes, amongst all our other concerns, the voters should neither forgive nor forget this government’s role in decimating our Post Office network, if the rundown of our rural and small town Post Offices continues and more are forced to close down then many thousands of more vulnerable older people could become more isolated from the local community in our urban and rural areas.
There is a world of difference between a need for Post Offices to modernise to make them more financially viable, and the programme of wholesale closure that has been undertaken over the last fifteen years. One final thing, it is important to remember that the New Labour Government closed the Post Offices without adequately exploring how Post Offices could expand their services and was merely following the line adopted by the previous Conservative Governments.
The Post Office Diversification Fund is planned to run for three years and has been set up to offer help and advice with advertising, marketing, business advice, training and setting up new services for customers. The fund can also help with improving access, security and upgrading computer equipment, etc. This is the One Wales Government helping to deliver improvements to important services in our communities, which makes a pleasant change by way of comparison with recent Westminster Governments.
With a Westminster election pending, it is worth remembering that while the Post Office Closure Programme has always been Westminster driven and a non devolved matter enough voices of concern were raised in Wales to make the National Assembly listen. Despite the fact that local Labour MP's in Caerphilly (Wayne David) and Newport East (Jessica Morden) said one thing about the closure programme but voted for it in Westminster and hoped that no one would notice - oops! there were a number of successful local campaigns to keep their post offices.
The cold reality is that since 1997, the New Labour Government has ensured that less and less services can be provided through the post office network and has deliberately sought to undermine these vital small businesses; by taking away important income streams such as television licence and the processing of benefits and pension entitlement. The New Labour Government merely followed the policy of its Conservative predecessor by going out of its way to systematically undermine the Post Office Network by making it practically impossible for sub postmasters to earn a living, and forcing them to close their businesses. New Labour came to power in 1997, since then some 4,000 Post offices have been closed, and some 3,000 Post offices were closed by the previous Conservative administration.
When Polling Day comes, amongst all our other concerns, the voters should neither forgive nor forget this government’s role in decimating our Post Office network, if the rundown of our rural and small town Post Offices continues and more are forced to close down then many thousands of more vulnerable older people could become more isolated from the local community in our urban and rural areas.
There is a world of difference between a need for Post Offices to modernise to make them more financially viable, and the programme of wholesale closure that has been undertaken over the last fifteen years. One final thing, it is important to remember that the New Labour Government closed the Post Offices without adequately exploring how Post Offices could expand their services and was merely following the line adopted by the previous Conservative Governments.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Once again the Severn Bridge tolls, which are the highest in the UK, are set to rise again on 1st January 2010, upon receipt of an order from the Secretary of State, in line with the Severn Bridges Act 1992. It is worth noting that there is provision in the Act for the Secretary of State to amend the tolls, which would at least be a start in helping reduce the costs that road users in Wales are currently facing.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Severn Bridge crossing tolls will rise on January 1st 2010, the new tolls will be:
Cars and Motor Caravans: Currently £5.40 will rise to £5.50
Small Goods Vehicles and Small Buses: Currently £10.90 will stay at £10.90
Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses: currently £16.30 will rise to £16.40
Source Severn River Crossing Plc Website: http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/TollPrices2010.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By way of comparison across the bridge so to speak, it is worth noting that in October, Sadiq Khan, the Minister of Transport, announced a grant of £6m to the Humber Bridge company, saying that, “the Government was committed to doing everything it can to protect communities and businesses from economic downturn and help the country to recover. That is why I decided not to accept the Humber Bridge board’s proposed toll increases” if that’s the case in England, then why not in Wales?
Looking beyond the immediate and irritating problem of the tolls, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there is another issue that is worth thinking about – what’s going to happen in 2014, which is not that far away, when it has been estimated that the PFI contract will have been covered by toll receipts. Who actually is going to own the bridge (or bridges) and will they stop collecting the tolls? If not then the bridge (or bridges) sit on the border - but the toll on the newer bridge is collected in Wales, so will the bridge and the tolls simply revert back to the Department of transport?
Or if it comes to the National Assembly, by default, then if the current tolls were halved then, what could be accomplished by using a percentage to cover maintenance of the bridge and using the remainder of the toll for ring fenced capital projects – such as new integrated transport systems, reopening railway lines, funding tram systems and investing in rail freight – which would be far more beneficial for all of us in Wales than the finance disappearing into the Westminster coffers or to bail out the bankers?
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Severn Bridge crossing tolls will rise on January 1st 2010, the new tolls will be:
Cars and Motor Caravans: Currently £5.40 will rise to £5.50
Small Goods Vehicles and Small Buses: Currently £10.90 will stay at £10.90
Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses: currently £16.30 will rise to £16.40
Source Severn River Crossing Plc Website: http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/TollPrices2010.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By way of comparison across the bridge so to speak, it is worth noting that in October, Sadiq Khan, the Minister of Transport, announced a grant of £6m to the Humber Bridge company, saying that, “the Government was committed to doing everything it can to protect communities and businesses from economic downturn and help the country to recover. That is why I decided not to accept the Humber Bridge board’s proposed toll increases” if that’s the case in England, then why not in Wales?
Looking beyond the immediate and irritating problem of the tolls, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there is another issue that is worth thinking about – what’s going to happen in 2014, which is not that far away, when it has been estimated that the PFI contract will have been covered by toll receipts. Who actually is going to own the bridge (or bridges) and will they stop collecting the tolls? If not then the bridge (or bridges) sit on the border - but the toll on the newer bridge is collected in Wales, so will the bridge and the tolls simply revert back to the Department of transport?
Or if it comes to the National Assembly, by default, then if the current tolls were halved then, what could be accomplished by using a percentage to cover maintenance of the bridge and using the remainder of the toll for ring fenced capital projects – such as new integrated transport systems, reopening railway lines, funding tram systems and investing in rail freight – which would be far more beneficial for all of us in Wales than the finance disappearing into the Westminster coffers or to bail out the bankers?
Monday, 21 December 2009
NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE?
It looks like the Charity Commission may be looking (according to The Guardian) at the Taxpayers' Alliance (which may or may not be a Conservative front organisation) which campaigns against the misuse of public funds, has set up a charity under a different name which can secure subsidies from the taxman worth up to 40% on individuals' donations.
According to the Guardian,'The Charity Commission's records apparently show that the charitable arm was established as the Taxpayers' Alliance Research Trust in 2007, before changing its name to the Politics and Economics Research Trust. Oddly enough the charity's trustees include leading Taxpayers' Alliance supporter Patrick Barbour, the founder of Reform, a free-market thinktank which advocates lower tax and public spending and at l;east until he became leader of the UK Independence party last month, one Lord Pearson of Rannoch was also a trustee.'
According to the Guardian,'The Charity Commission's records apparently show that the charitable arm was established as the Taxpayers' Alliance Research Trust in 2007, before changing its name to the Politics and Economics Research Trust. Oddly enough the charity's trustees include leading Taxpayers' Alliance supporter Patrick Barbour, the founder of Reform, a free-market thinktank which advocates lower tax and public spending and at l;east until he became leader of the UK Independence party last month, one Lord Pearson of Rannoch was also a trustee.'
The Guardian also notes that the trust was the recipient of donations worth £373,230 in 2008 and approved 29 grant proposals amounting to £278,520 with the stated aim "to advance the education of the public" and to "promote for the public benefit research into matters of public taxation, public policy, applied economics and political science". What may be more interesting is that unusually for a charitable trust, the accounts do not name the grant recipients...
Check this out for more information on the Taxpayers Alliance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)