Discussion:
fascist 'new' labour put in a fuel escalator...now they're whining about travel price rises
Add Reply
abelard
2018-11-30 11:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
--
www.abelard.org
p***@gmail.com
2018-11-30 15:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
--
www.abelard.org
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf

Patrick
JNugent
2018-11-30 16:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.

Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.

All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-11-30 19:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the
commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in
the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point.
Maybe you could explain why a post which points out how a fuel escalator was
‘put in’ originally by the Tories, on a thread with a title new labour
put in a fuel escalator, is irrelevant?
Post by JNugent
The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
abelard
2018-11-30 19:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:09:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the
commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in
the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point.
Maybe you could explain why a post which points out how a fuel escalator was
‘put in’ originally by the Tories, on a thread with a title new labour
put in a fuel escalator, is irrelevant?
you socialist are always so keen to change the subject...
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by JNugent
The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-11-30 21:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:09:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the
commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in
the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point.
Maybe you could explain why a post which points out how a fuel escalator was
‘put in’ originally by the Tories, on a thread with a title new labour
put in a fuel escalator, is irrelevant?
you socialist are always so keen to change the subject...
Maybe you could remind us of your subject?
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by JNugent
The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
abelard
2018-11-30 22:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:09:57 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:09:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the
commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in
the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point.
Maybe you could explain why a post which points out how a fuel escalator was
‘put in’ originally by the Tories, on a thread with a title new labour
put in a fuel escalator, is irrelevant?
you socialist are always so keen to change the subject...
Maybe you could remind us of your subject?
if you are not in a tate to work it out for yourself you'd
be better to stop posting until you recover
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by JNugent
The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
--
www.abelard.org
p***@gmail.com
2018-12-01 01:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Just correcting an error of fact without comment the error in the original post, also highlighted by others.

Also, not doubled under Labour. Increased to inflation +5% in 1993 under the Major administration it was increased to +6% in 1997. It's in the link I posted with my earlier reply.

I'd need a cite should you be saying that when Labour came to power in 1997 the UK had the lowest fuel price in the European Union, I can't immediately find one.
Post by JNugent
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Please could you explain the inconsistency to which you refer. The orginal post was unspecific and unreferenced, I can guess it might have been Labour party criticism of rail fare increases, but can't be sure.

As you say fuel duty has been frozen since 2010. By contrast, in 2017 it was widely reported rail fares, affected by government formula on regulated fares, had increased twice as much as pay since 2010. There have been further increases since. It brings three arguments into play:

Government encourages a modal shift from rail to road, contrary to its policies on environment and air quality

People trying to just get to work or the shops know that Conservatives are absolutely not on their side.

Labour arguing against rail price increases means people trying to just get to work or the shops know that Labour are absolutely on their side.

Patrick
abelard
2018-12-01 10:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Just correcting an error of fact without comment the error in the original post, also highlighted by others.
Also, not doubled under Labour. Increased to inflation +5% in 1993 under the Major administration it was increased to +6% in 1997. It's in the link I posted with my earlier reply.
I'd need a cite should you be saying that when Labour came to power in 1997 the UK had the lowest fuel price in the European Union, I can't immediately find one.
Post by JNugent
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Please could you explain the inconsistency to which you refer. The orginal post was unspecific and unreferenced, I can guess it might have been Labour party criticism of rail fare increases, but can't be sure.
correct
Post by p***@gmail.com
Government encourages a modal shift from rail to road, contrary to its policies on environment and air quality
it's good that you go for a real inconsistency but it is a change
of subject...naturally...
the long term solution is the electrification of road transport...
that will require the advance of nuclear power...against
which socialists constantly posture despite it being both
safer and necessary...
but of course the oil industry is the most powerful lobby
on earth...fortunately trump is undermining that...as is
fracking which also weakens the lobby

tories look to the long term interests....socialists invariably look
to short term interests....their own...
Post by p***@gmail.com
People trying to just get to work or the shops know that Conservatives are absolutely not on their side.
Labour arguing against rail price increases means people trying to just get to work or the shops know that Labour are absolutely on their side.
indeed fnl do takes sides...tories work to improve the state of the
nation
but the side fnl take is that of the unions...not the poor...they are
after all owned by the unions

fnl do not help the poor...they destroy the economy...predictably

the poor do not usually travel by train...other than to footer
competitions...they have cheap forth-hand cars or they
use buses or they walk
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-01 10:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the
commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in
the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Just correcting an error of fact without comment the error in the original
post, also highlighted by others.
Also, not doubled under Labour. Increased to inflation +5% in 1993 under
the Major administration it was increased to +6% in 1997. It's in the link
I posted with my earlier reply.
I'd need a cite should you be saying that when Labour came to power in 1997
the UK had the lowest fuel price in the European Union, I can't immediately
find one.
Post by JNugent
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Please could you explain the inconsistency to which you refer. The orginal
post was unspecific and unreferenced, I can guess it might have been Labour
party criticism of rail fare increases, but can't be sure.
correct
Post by p***@gmail.com
As you say fuel duty has been frozen since 2010. By contrast, in 2017 it
was widely reported rail fares, affected by government formula on regulated
fares, had increased twice as much as pay since 2010. There have been
Government encourages a modal shift from rail to road, contrary to its
policies on environment and air quality
it's good that you go for a real inconsistency but it is a change
of subject...naturally...
the long term solution is the electrification of road transport..
that will require the advance of nuclear power...
And a significant increase in battery power, together with a reduction of
their weight if you mean road freight transport.

Otherwise half the energy consumed is going to be wasted on moving millions
of batteries around the country on the vehicles.
Post by p***@gmail.com
against
which socialists constantly posture despite it being both
safer and necessary...
but of course the oil industry is the most powerful lobby
on earth...fortunately trump is undermining that...as is
fracking which also weakens the lobby
And also the earth’s crust, judging by the increase in the number of
seismic events associated with fracking.
Post by p***@gmail.com
tories look to the long term interests....socialists invariably look
to short term interests....their own...
Post by p***@gmail.com
People trying to just get to work or the shops know that Conservatives are
absolutely not on their side.
Labour arguing against rail price increases means people trying to just get
to work or the shops know that Labour are absolutely on their side.
indeed fnl do takes sides...tories work to improve the state of the
nation
but the side fnl take is that of the unions...not the poor...they are
after all owned by the unions
fnl do not help the poor...they destroy the economy...predictably
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the market
for tickets.
Post by p***@gmail.com
other than to footer
competitions...they have cheap forth-hand cars or they
use buses or they walk
abelard
2018-12-01 11:00:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...

the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-01 12:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description intended)
and devil take the hindmost?

(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
abelard
2018-12-01 12:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-01 14:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
You could move to Johannesburg.
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
By treating it as a luxury.
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
Are you going to carry 500 miles worth of electricity in one HGV?
abelard
2018-12-01 14:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:00:31 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
You could move to Johannesburg.
the wrong ones are in the gated communities
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
By treating it as a luxury.
how? only sell ferraris?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
Are you going to carry 500 miles worth of electricity in one HGV?
not yet...
the 500 miles of methanol is possible
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-01 14:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:00:31 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
You could move to Johannesburg.
the wrong ones are in the gated communities
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
By treating it as a luxury.
how? only sell ferraris?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
Are you going to carry 500 miles worth of electricity in one HGV?
not yet...
the 500 miles of methanol is possible
That hardly counts as electrifying road transport.
abelard
2018-12-01 14:51:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:39:29 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:00:31 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
You could move to Johannesburg.
the wrong ones are in the gated communities
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
By treating it as a luxury.
how? only sell ferraris?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
Are you going to carry 500 miles worth of electricity in one HGV?
not yet...
the 500 miles of methanol is possible
That hardly counts as electrifying road transport.
i don't see why not
you can manufacture methanol from air and water using
nuclear power...you can also use the heat from nuclear
that is usually wasted
it is also possible to do that even with the likes of windmills!


eg
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy_replacements_books.php#beyond_oil_and_gas
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy

by George A. Olah, Alain Goeppert, and G. K. Surya Prakash
Four GoldenYak award

Wiley-VCH, 2006, hbk, 3527312757,
$32.50 [amazon.com] / £17.09 [amazon.co.uk]

Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy by Olanh and PrakashThis
book tackles the problems of storage better than any other source I
know.

A methanol economy is very close to the optimum procedure for a viable
energy future, which I have come to believe in from my own studies,
but with less confidence from within my much lesser knowledge of
chemistry [1].

Refer to Replacing fossil fuels—the scale of the problem and
Replacements for fossil fuels—what can be done about it?

This book has a excellent historical review of the fossil fuel
economy, together with a comprehensive summary of the various routes
to replacing the present fossil fuel economy with a methanol-carrier
economy. The book is slapdash on nuclear power.
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2018-12-03 09:44:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:39:29 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:00:31 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
You could move to Johannesburg.
the wrong ones are in the gated communities
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
By treating it as a luxury.
how? only sell ferraris?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how
converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
Are you going to carry 500 miles worth of electricity in one HGV?
not yet...
the 500 miles of methanol is possible
That hardly counts as electrifying road transport.
i don't see why not
you can manufacture methanol from air and water using
nuclear power...you can also use the heat from nuclear
that is usually wasted
it is also possible to do that even with the likes of windmills!
You can also use biological processes to produce ethanol as fuel. I wonder
how the Wahabis in Saudi feel about that.
abelard
2018-12-03 09:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:44:42 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:39:29 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:00:31 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I?m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off
the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
You could move to Johannesburg.
the wrong ones are in the gated communities
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
By treating it as a luxury.
how? only sell ferraris?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description
intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how
converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
Are you going to carry 500 miles worth of electricity in one HGV?
not yet...
the 500 miles of methanol is possible
That hardly counts as electrifying road transport.
i don't see why not
you can manufacture methanol from air and water using
nuclear power...you can also use the heat from nuclear
that is usually wasted
it is also possible to do that even with the likes of windmills!
You can also use biological processes to produce ethanol as fuel. I wonder
how the Wahabis in Saudi feel about that.
the end of the oil age will be a great benefit to the world
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-03 10:01:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:39:29 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:00:31 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:14:01 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market
for tickets.
so my money should go to buying their tickets so's i can
produce less cars...
Your money should go to buying their ticket to keep their crap cars off
the
roads, and cut the number of hold-ups caused by breakdowns.
i could go for that if they lived in a gated community
You could move to Johannesburg.
the wrong ones are in the gated communities
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
thus raising the price of cars so's the real poor can no
longer afford even an old banger...
Yes. Car transport should be a luxury, not a right - given the amount
of
obnoxious fumes it produces.
how do you intend to allocate the 'right'?
By treating it as a luxury.
how? only sell ferraris?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the marxist/socialist theory of 'economics'
Why should economics be a free-for-all (irony of that description
intended)
and devil take the hindmost?
(You seem to have cut out the bit where you failed to explain how
converting
road traffic to nuclear was going to work).
via electricity and/or methanol
Are you going to carry 500 miles worth of electricity in one HGV?
not yet...
the 500 miles of methanol is possible
That hardly counts as electrifying road transport.
i don't see why not
you can manufacture methanol from air and water using
nuclear power...you can also use the heat from nuclear
that is usually wasted
it is also possible to do that even with the likes of windmills!
You can also use biological processes to produce ethanol as fuel. I wonder
how the Wahabis in Saudi feel about that.
The sun kindly sends us more energy in an hour that we will all need for a
lifetime. Why not spend money trying to harness that far more efficiently
than we can be bothered to do now?
abelard
2018-12-03 10:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:01:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
The sun kindly sends us more energy in an hour that we will all need for a
lifetime. Why not spend money trying to harness that far more efficiently
than we can be bothered to do now?
there are potential problems with the amount of land surface required

at present only nuclear will replace adequately the filthy fossil
fuels industry
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-03 10:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:01:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
The sun kindly sends us more energy in an hour that we will all need for a
lifetime. Why not spend money trying to harness that far more efficiently
than we can be bothered to do now?
there are potential problems with the amount of land surface required
A quick view of aerial photographs will show the surface area covered by
large buildings such as warehouses, barns, office and apartment blocks with
no solar energy collection facility.
Post by abelard
at present only nuclear will replace adequately the filthy fossil
fuels industry
Why not look to the future?
abelard
2018-12-03 16:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:12:19 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:01:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
The sun kindly sends us more energy in an hour that we will all need for a
lifetime. Why not spend money trying to harness that far more efficiently
than we can be bothered to do now?
there are potential problems with the amount of land surface required
A quick view of aerial photographs will show the surface area covered by
large buildings such as warehouses, barns, office and apartment blocks with
no solar energy collection facility.
indeed, more can be done but the scale of the problem
will not be met by windmills and pv arrays

of course the sand desert could be used and they could
sell to the advanced nations
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
at present only nuclear will replace adequately the filthy fossil
fuels industry
Why not look to the future?
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2018-12-01 12:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market for tickets.
Rail travel has always been hideously expensive. As a child of a family
without a car, like almost everybody then, we travelled somewhere by
train about three times a year. The (currently just) affordable car has
done far more for travel in Britain than the trains ever did. We were
not a poor family, just not rich.

Rail travel only becomes affordable by means of heavy subsidy from
people who don't use it. A bit like opera. Nobody ever asks *why* rail
travel is so expensive here, when poor countries can manage to do it.
--
Joe
abelard
2018-12-01 12:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market for tickets.
Rail travel has always been hideously expensive. As a child of a family
without a car, like almost everybody then, we travelled somewhere by
train about three times a year. The (currently just) affordable car has
done far more for travel in Britain than the trains ever did. We were
not a poor family, just not rich.
Rail travel only becomes affordable by means of heavy subsidy from
people who don't use it. A bit like opera. Nobody ever asks *why* rail
travel is so expensive here, when poor countries can manage to do it.
people like cars not only for cheapness but also because
they don't have to lug luggage around..they don't have
to get wet or cold...they don't have to live with yobs
(as long as they're good at dodging their cars)..
and they're not dependent on union times tables and where
the local train(if any) decides to stop
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2018-12-05 02:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 10:46:16 +0000
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by abelard
the poor do not usually travel by train...
I’m not surprised, because privatisation has priced them out of the
market for tickets.
Rail travel has always been hideously expensive. As a child of a family
without a car, like almost everybody then, we travelled somewhere by
train about three times a year.
Exactly. And that is the way it was for almost all of us. In terms of
normal life as it was lived day to day, the railway might as well not
have existed.
Post by abelard
The (currently just) affordable car has
done far more for travel in Britain than the trains ever did. We were
not a poor family, just not rich.
Rail travel only becomes affordable by means of heavy subsidy from
people who don't use it. A bit like opera. Nobody ever asks *why* rail
travel is so expensive here, when poor countries can manage to do it.
+1.

Union power.
JNugent
2018-12-05 02:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Just correcting an error of fact without comment the error in the original post, also highlighted by others.
Also, not doubled under Labour. Increased to inflation +5% in 1993 under the Major administration it was increased to +6% in 1997. It's in the link I posted with my earlier reply.
This was compounding up already. Increasing the compounding rate made it
worse.
Post by p***@gmail.com
I'd need a cite should you be saying that when Labour came to power in 1997 the UK had the lowest fuel price in the European Union, I can't immediately find one.
The EU was smaller in those days, of course. Petrol was about 53p a
litre in May 1997 (that's £2.41 a gallon in meaningful units).

By September 2000, when The People revolted against Labour's oppressive
fuel tax increases, the pump price had risen to in excess of 80p a litre
(ie, more than £3.64 a gallon).

That was a 51% increase within three years.

If you need to refresh your memopry of that wonderful moment when the
people said "No more of that", have a look at:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom>
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Please could you explain the inconsistency to which you refer. The orginal post was unspecific and unreferenced, I can guess it might have been Labour party criticism of rail fare increases, but can't be sure.
The inconsistency is plain enough. Labour complains about rising
transport costs for some at 3% a year, but conveniently forgets that it
increased marginal travel costs (for the majority of people and the
majority of travel to work) by more than 14% a year.

If you are concerned about the disposable income of workers, you have to
be concerned about the disposable income of all workers, not just the
preferred ones who commute by train to Central London.

There... that's easy enough, isn't it?
Post by p***@gmail.com
Government encourages a modal shift from rail to road, contrary to its policies on environment and air quality
That is sheer nonsense. There is no "encouragement". People who want
cars buy them. And they want them because of the mode's extreme
flexibility and convenience, which railways (or buses, come to that,
with their 23:30 switch off) will never match.
Post by p***@gmail.com
People trying to just get to work or the shops know that Conservatives are absolutely not on their side.
Labour arguing against rail price increases means people trying to just get to work or the shops know that Labour are absolutely on their side.
Rubbish with gold-plated bells on.

You just haven't been listening, have you?

Apart from those commuting to Central London, most commuting (and
*certainly* most shopping trips) are done by car. Who gets a train to
the supermarket? You're making this up as you go along.
p***@gmail.com
2018-12-05 19:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Just correcting an error of fact without comment the error in the original post, also highlighted by others.
Also, not doubled under Labour. Increased to inflation +5% in 1993 under the Major administration it was increased to +6% in 1997. It's in the link I posted with my earlier reply.
This was compounding up already. Increasing the compounding rate made it
worse.
It did. More below
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
I'd need a cite should you be saying that when Labour came to power in 1997 the UK had the lowest fuel price in the European Union, I can't immediately find one.
The EU was smaller in those days, of course. Petrol was about 53p a
litre in May 1997 (that's £2.41 a gallon in meaningful units).
By September 2000, when The People revolted against Labour's oppressive
fuel tax increases, the pump price had risen to in excess of 80p a litre
(ie, more than £3.64 a gallon).
That was a 51% increase within three years.
Yes. That predominently wasn't down to the increase in the fuel duty escalator from +5% to +6%, and in large part due to non-tax/government factors such as oil price. See below.
Post by JNugent
If you need to refresh your memopry of that wonderful moment when the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom>
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Please could you explain the inconsistency to which you refer. The orginal post was unspecific and unreferenced, I can guess it might have been Labour party criticism of rail fare increases, but can't be sure.
The inconsistency is plain enough. Labour complains about rising
transport costs for some at 3% a year, but conveniently forgets that it
increased marginal travel costs (for the majority of people and the
majority of travel to work) by more than 14% a year.
The Conservatives' fuel duty escalator was inflation +5%. Labour increased it to +6% in 1997 and abandoned it in 2000.

The effect of that 1% change, compounded over the three years, was 2.8% increase in duty from where it would have been under the old regime.

Inflation in March 1997-99 was 2.6%, 3.5% and 2.1%. At the Conservatives' +5% it gives 25%, Labour's increase to 6% gives a 28.5% increase.

And it's a poor argument imv to suggest the 2018 Labour Party is inconsistent with a policy abandoned by a previous Labour regime in the last century and which they're not advocating now.
Post by JNugent
If you are concerned about the disposable income of workers, you have to
be concerned about the disposable income of all workers, not just the
preferred ones who commute by train to Central London.
Agreed
Post by JNugent
There... that's easy enough, isn't it?
Real wages data doesn't suggest, as suggested upthread, that Conservatives are on their side, but disposable income of workers is another debate.
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Government encourages a modal shift from rail to road, contrary to its policies on environment and air quality
That is sheer nonsense. There is no "encouragement". People who want
cars buy them. And they want them because of the mode's extreme
flexibility and convenience, which railways (or buses, come to that,
with their 23:30 switch off) will never match.
I disagree in part. It's the use of cars, rather than the purchase. By changing the comparative price *as policy* it makes driving comparatively more affordable.
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
People trying to just get to work or the shops know that Conservatives are absolutely not on their side.
Labour arguing against rail price increases means people trying to just get to work or the shops know that Labour are absolutely on their side.
Rubbish with gold-plated bells on.
I'm using the parlance of the previous poster to show the weakness of their argument, that by using simple measures (such as rail fares) you can make opposite assumptions to the ones they made.

I do reckon that commuters (in London and elsewhere) will agree with the criticism of the escalator on rail fares.
Post by JNugent
You just haven't been listening, have you?
Apart from those commuting to Central London, most commuting (and
*certainly* most shopping trips) are done by car. Who gets a train to
the supermarket? You're making this up as you go along.
Supermarket less so, but shopping and commuting by public transport yes, in cities more than towns.

Patrick
JNugent
2018-12-06 17:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Just correcting an error of fact without comment the error in the original post, also highlighted by others.
Also, not doubled under Labour. Increased to inflation +5% in 1993 under the Major administration it was increased to +6% in 1997. It's in the link I posted with my earlier reply.
This was compounding up already. Increasing the compounding rate made it
worse.
It did. More below
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
I'd need a cite should you be saying that when Labour came to power in 1997 the UK had the lowest fuel price in the European Union, I can't immediately find one.
The EU was smaller in those days, of course. Petrol was about 53p a
litre in May 1997 (that's £2.41 a gallon in meaningful units).
By September 2000, when The People revolted against Labour's oppressive
fuel tax increases, the pump price had risen to in excess of 80p a litre
(ie, more than £3.64 a gallon).
That was a 51% increase within three years.
Yes. That predominently wasn't down to the increase in the fuel duty escalator from +5% to +6%, and in large part due to non-tax/government factors such as oil price. See below.
In three years, a £1 price unit, compounded at 6% + inflation (and
assuming inflation at, say, 3%) wiould change to £1.30 and the majority
of that change is due to government actions and policies.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
If you need to refresh your memopry of that wonderful moment when the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom>
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Please could you explain the inconsistency to which you refer. The orginal post was unspecific and unreferenced, I can guess it might have been Labour party criticism of rail fare increases, but can't be sure.
The inconsistency is plain enough. Labour complains about rising
transport costs for some at 3% a year, but conveniently forgets that it
increased marginal travel costs (for the majority of people and the
majority of travel to work) by more than 14% a year.
The Conservatives' fuel duty escalator was inflation +5%. Labour increased it to +6% in 1997 and abandoned it in 2000.
They should never have increased it and ought to have have abandoned it
as soon as they got into office, when fuel was costing the same in the
UK as it did in the territories of our competitors in the rest of the EU
(as big as it then was).

As it turned out, the Labour government was forced to abandon their
policy of ever-increasing tax burden on those with the temerity to
drive. They didn't do it out of altruism. They had every intention of
carrying on with it until the people rose up against them. Even then,
Blair *admitted* that we had the most expensive fuel in Europe but was
blustered that as far as he was concerned, motorists had a duty (more of
one than anyone else, it seems) to pay for schools and hospitals. They
had absolutely *no* intention of letting up on those tax rises.
Post by p***@gmail.com
The effect of that 1% change, compounded over the three years, was 2.8% increase in duty from where it would have been under the old regime.
Inflation in March 1997-99 was 2.6%, 3.5% and 2.1%. At the Conservatives' +5% it gives 25%, Labour's increase to 6% gives a 28.5% increase.
They carried on with that poolicy - and intensified it - partly out of
doctrinaire malice (think Prescott, if you can bear the thought) way
past the point where it ought to have been discontinued.
Post by p***@gmail.com
And it's a poor argument imv to suggest the 2018 Labour Party is inconsistent with a policy abandoned by a previous Labour regime in the last century and which they're not advocating now.
Any minute now, you're going to claim that Blair, Brown and Prescott
were "Tories".
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
If you are concerned about the disposable income of workers, you have to
be concerned about the disposable income of all workers, not just the
preferred ones who commute by train to Central London.
Agreed
Post by JNugent
There... that's easy enough, isn't it?
Real wages data doesn't suggest, as suggested upthread, that Conservatives are on their side, but disposable income of workers is another debate.
Living standards rose a lot during the 80s and up to 1997.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Government encourages a modal shift from rail to road, contrary to its policies on environment and air quality
That is sheer nonsense. There is no "encouragement". People who want
cars buy them. And they want them because of the mode's extreme
flexibility and convenience, which railways (or buses, come to that,
with their 23:30 switch off) will never match.
I disagree in part. It's the use of cars, rather than the purchase. By changing the comparative price *as policy* it makes driving comparatively more affordable.
So Labour wanted people to buy cars, but not use them.

I see.

What utility would be derived from that? Would it be for decorative /
ornamental purposes?
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
People trying to just get to work or the shops know that Conservatives are absolutely not on their side.
Labour arguing against rail price increases means people trying to just get to work or the shops know that Labour are absolutely on their side.
Rubbish with gold-plated bells on.
I'm using the parlance of the previous poster to show the weakness of their argument, that by using simple measures (such as rail fares) you can make opposite assumptions to the ones they made.
I do reckon that commuters (in London and elsewhere) will agree with the criticism of the escalator on rail fares.
Post by JNugent
You just haven't been listening, have you?
Apart from those commuting to Central London, most commuting (and
*certainly* most shopping trips) are done by car. Who gets a train to
the supermarket? You're making this up as you go along.
Supermarket less so, but shopping and commuting by public transport yes, in cities more than towns.
The majority of people *never* use trains (well, hardly ever).

Trains simply do not feature in their lives, and for good reason:
railways do not provide a service that is in any way useful to them.
p***@gmail.com
2018-12-06 21:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
will fnl and agent cob ever e consistent?
"The Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’ (the commitment to increase duty rates by a specified percentage each year) in the March 1993 Budget."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03015/SN03015.pdf
...and Labour doubled its rate and maintained it in operation until UK
petrol prices, previously the lowest in the European Union, were the
undoubted highest. That had never been the intention of the Major
government.
Just correcting an error of fact without comment the error in the original post, also highlighted by others.
Also, not doubled under Labour. Increased to inflation +5% in 1993 under the Major administration it was increased to +6% in 1997. It's in the link I posted with my earlier reply.
This was compounding up already. Increasing the compounding rate made it
worse.
It did. More below
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
I'd need a cite should you be saying that when Labour came to power in 1997 the UK had the lowest fuel price in the European Union, I can't immediately find one.
The EU was smaller in those days, of course. Petrol was about 53p a
litre in May 1997 (that's £2.41 a gallon in meaningful units).
By September 2000, when The People revolted against Labour's oppressive
fuel tax increases, the pump price had risen to in excess of 80p a litre
(ie, more than £3.64 a gallon).
That was a 51% increase within three years.
Yes. That predominently wasn't down to the increase in the fuel duty escalator from +5% to +6%, and in large part due to non-tax/government factors such as oil price. See below.
In three years, a £1 price unit, compounded at 6% + inflation (and
assuming inflation at, say, 3%) wiould change to £1.30 and the majority
of that change is due to government actions and policies.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
If you need to refresh your memopry of that wonderful moment when the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom>
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Then the people revolted against that policy of Blair, Brown and
Prescott (late 2000) and as a result, it was changed.
All of that, of course, simply addresses your irrelevant point. The
relevant point is Labour's inconsistency. Compare and contrast with the
freeze of fuel duty since 2010. People trying to just get to work or the
shops know that Labour is absolutely not on their side.
Please could you explain the inconsistency to which you refer. The orginal post was unspecific and unreferenced, I can guess it might have been Labour party criticism of rail fare increases, but can't be sure.
The inconsistency is plain enough. Labour complains about rising
transport costs for some at 3% a year, but conveniently forgets that it
increased marginal travel costs (for the majority of people and the
majority of travel to work) by more than 14% a year.
The Conservatives' fuel duty escalator was inflation +5%. Labour increased it to +6% in 1997 and abandoned it in 2000.
They should never have increased it and ought to have have abandoned it
as soon as they got into office, when fuel was costing the same in the
UK as it did in the territories of our competitors in the rest of the EU
(as big as it then was).
As it turned out, the Labour government was forced to abandon their
policy of ever-increasing tax burden on those with the temerity to
drive. They didn't do it out of altruism. They had every intention of
carrying on with it until the people rose up against them. Even then,
Blair *admitted* that we had the most expensive fuel in Europe but was
blustered that as far as he was concerned, motorists had a duty (more of
one than anyone else, it seems) to pay for schools and hospitals. They
had absolutely *no* intention of letting up on those tax rises.
Post by p***@gmail.com
The effect of that 1% change, compounded over the three years, was 2.8% increase in duty from where it would have been under the old regime.
Inflation in March 1997-99 was 2.6%, 3.5% and 2.1%. At the Conservatives' +5% it gives 25%, Labour's increase to 6% gives a 28.5% increase.
They carried on with that poolicy - and intensified it - partly out of
doctrinaire malice (think Prescott, if you can bear the thought) way
past the point where it ought to have been discontinued.
Post by p***@gmail.com
And it's a poor argument imv to suggest the 2018 Labour Party is inconsistent with a policy abandoned by a previous Labour regime in the last century and which they're not advocating now.
Any minute now, you're going to claim that Blair, Brown and Prescott
were "Tories".
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
If you are concerned about the disposable income of workers, you have to
be concerned about the disposable income of all workers, not just the
preferred ones who commute by train to Central London.
Agreed
Post by JNugent
There... that's easy enough, isn't it?
Real wages data doesn't suggest, as suggested upthread, that Conservatives are on their side, but disposable income of workers is another debate.
Living standards rose a lot during the 80s and up to 1997.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Government encourages a modal shift from rail to road, contrary to its policies on environment and air quality
That is sheer nonsense. There is no "encouragement". People who want
cars buy them. And they want them because of the mode's extreme
flexibility and convenience, which railways (or buses, come to that,
with their 23:30 switch off) will never match.
I disagree in part. It's the use of cars, rather than the purchase. By changing the comparative price *as policy* it makes driving comparatively more affordable.
So Labour wanted people to buy cars, but not use them.
Nope. Note the first person. I was expressing an opinion. I
Post by JNugent
I see.
What utility would be derived from that? Would it be for decorative /
ornamental purposes?
We have a car. I have a monthly public transport travel pass (non-central London, to pick up an earlier point). So do many work colleagues. My wife uses public transport to visit the metropolis for leisure and shopping. It and the car are not mutually exclusive. It's unremarkable.
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by p***@gmail.com
People trying to just get to work or the shops know that Conservatives are absolutely not on their side.
Labour arguing against rail price increases means people trying to just get to work or the shops know that Labour are absolutely on their side.
Rubbish with gold-plated bells on.
I'm using the parlance of the previous poster to show the weakness of their argument, that by using simple measures (such as rail fares) you can make opposite assumptions to the ones they made.
I do reckon that commuters (in London and elsewhere) will agree with the criticism of the escalator on rail fares.
Post by JNugent
You just haven't been listening, have you?
Apart from those commuting to Central London, most commuting (and
*certainly* most shopping trips) are done by car. Who gets a train to
the supermarket? You're making this up as you go along.
Supermarket less so, but shopping and commuting by public transport yes, in cities more than towns.
The majority of people *never* use trains (well, hardly ever).
railways do not provide a service that is in any way useful to them.
Patrick

Loading...