Budget/Spending Review 2021 - Railways

[yorksrob]

Who cares? The majority of the population don’t, and will care even less if punitive taxation in the name of climate change really starts to hurt their wallets. The majority who have jumped on the climate change bandwagon are using it as part of a socialist agenda to level everyone up by pricing them away from “elitist“ forms of transportation such as private cars and aeroplanes. The great news is that - whatever the climate change groupies think - as part of this week’s budget the chancellor has chosen to invest in aviation by reducing domestic flight APD and in personal road transport by freezing fuel duties again.

It's all fun and games until the severe weather hits.

 

[Bald Rick]

Who cares? The majority of the population don’t

Have you asked them?

The opinion polls disagree with you...

 

[Starmill]

Yeah, I'm sure we all know how the grid works. But it's close enough as we can get without a dedicated grid just for NR.

Exactly. In the same way that to a consumer a 100% renewable energy tariff is a totally theoretical prospect, but it's the best that can be done short of going off grid and generating all of the electricity you use yourself, at enormous expense.

 

[HowardGWR]

Have you asked them?

The opinion polls disagree with you...

The opinion poll called the last general election didn't disagree with @Skymonster.

 

[Mikey C]

Have you asked them?

The opinion polls disagree with you...

If you ask people

"Do we need to do more about Climate Change" they'll say yes

If you ask people

"Are you happy to pay more for petrol, domestic gas, flying etc" the answer will be far less positive!

 

[Bald Rick]

If you ask people

"Do we need to do more about Climate Change" they'll say yes

If you ask people

"Are you happy to pay more for petrol, domestic gas, flying etc" the answer will be far less positive!

Look up the opinion polls to see what (and who) they asked. The UN poll across 50 countries is quite interesting...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You still haven’t told me when I’ll be able to get to the central belt in 20% less time. If - if - that is achieved at some time decades into the future, at that point it may be the time to discuss taxation of domestic aviation. For now though, rail journey time reductions are just wishful thinking.

HS2 to Crewe (2030-ish) will reduce journey times to Glasgow (and indirectly to Edinburgh) by about half an hour.
Assuming the Crewe-Golborne section is authorised next year that will knock another slice off, and will allow joint Glasgow/Edinburgh HS2 trains, splitting at Carlisle.
That will move many ECML Edinburgh services to the faster HS2/WCML.
So that might be around 2035.
Sections of the remaining classic WCML north of Golborne may also be upgraded by then (4-tracking, bypasses etc).
Scotland might also have a faster route from Carstairs by then.

 

[Skymonster]

Ok half an hour off a four and a half hour journey isn’t -20%. So at least 14 years until that time saving is achieved and at this point even that isn’t guaranteed. Meanwhile some folks advocate taxing domestic aviation now. Nuts. Thankfully the Chancellor doesn’t agree.

 

[Bevan Price]

Who cares? The majority of the population don’t, and will care even less if punitive taxation in the name of climate change really starts to hurt their wallets. The majority who have jumped on the climate change bandwagon are using it as part of a socialist agenda to level everyone up by pricing them away from “elitist“ forms of transportation such as private cars and aeroplanes. The great news is that - whatever the climate change groupies think - as part of this week’s budget the chancellor has chosen to invest in aviation by reducing domestic flight APD and in personal road transport by freezing fuel duties again.

Unfortunately, some people seem incapable of long-term forethought or planning.

Obviously you don't live in one of those places doomed to join Dunwich, Skipsea, etc. when sea levels rise, and you don't rely on railways such as the Conway Valley line, which are increasingly blocked by floods by worsening weather conditions.

 

[nlogax]

Ok half an hour off a four and a half hour journey isn’t -20%. So at least 14 years until that time saving is achieved and at this point even that isn’t guaranteed. Meanwhile some folks advocate taxing domestic aviation now. Nuts. Thankfully the Chancellor doesn’t agree.

I'm confused by your opposition to moving more domestic airline passengers to rail as part of a wider carbon reduction strategy. Do you work in the aviation industry?

 

[The Ham]

Who cares? The majority of the population don’t, and will care even less if punitive taxation in the name of climate change really starts to hurt their wallets. The majority who have jumped on the climate change bandwagon are using it as part of a socialist agenda to level everyone up by pricing them away from “elitist“ forms of transportation such as private cars and aeroplanes. The great news is that - whatever the climate change groupies think - as part of this week’s budget the chancellor has chosen to invest in aviation by reducing domestic flight APD and in personal road transport by freezing fuel duties again.

Punitive taxes, there main discussion is about maintaing a tax. The reduction of which reduces the tax paid by £13 per return trip. Unless someone is flying a lot it's hardly going to make much difference.

For instance those going between Manchester and Newquay, most using for holidays (so out of their own pocket) would likely be doing it once a year, maybe twice.

Those doing more often would either have family (so will accept it as what they have to do) or will be business. Even at 10 return trips a year it's the difference of £130, which if either can't cover would mean they would likely reduce to 9 trips a year, which is hardly going to impact family or business overly much.

I have family in the West Country and if we were limited to seeing them 8 times a year rather than 10 it would likely mean that we changed our annual leave priorities and did one of those trips as a longer one rather than 2 shorter trips, or requested that we work from "home" (just not our home) for a few days.

Either way hardly a significant impact on our budget or way of life, and I suspect this would be true of most people.

Personally I would have kept APD at the same rate, except where rail is longer than 6 hours and then halved it.

That would have given tax benefits to those where rail is slow, but wouldn't have changed the numbers for the big Central Belt/London services where rail is a much greener option and is a fairly easy rail trip (get in a train in Central London and get off in Central Edinburgh/Glasgow) taking about the same length of time as by air (by the time you get to/from the airport).