The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Yew]

Indeed, there was not nearly so much hate from the media towards those two. Instead it was "we'll fix broken Britain" etc etc etc.

Yes, rich people own most newspapers, and Osbournomics increased the amount of money in their pockets by increasing the wealth-divide.

 

[nw1]

I'm certainly not anti-car either. I enjoy driving and appreciate the many benefits of driving, my concern is that a great many (probably most) car drivers use cars a great deal more than they really need to. Of course we in the UK like to respect the right to choose to drive, but there is just so much that the Government could do to encourage better travel habits, but they don't seem to have the gumption to do so.

Just in case my phrase "better travel habits" isn't clear, consider the following. Having said we have the right to drive, at one time or another most of us also complain about the driving or parking habits of others, or about congestion. And who causes this bad driving or parking? It's all those who are exercising their "right" to drive (and park), in practice they often cause concerns and problems for others. Then there's the fact that even all of those who drive and park properly and legally every time, they are all part of the congestion that everyone else experiences. If people would just alter their habits a bit, the country would save a fortune in reduced costs of congestion, which in turn ends up as more in everyone's pockets. Is it even hard to do? Let me give an example. Not so long ago a major road on my route into town was closed due to a major gas main being ruptured, and the alternative route options for driving were very few. For the first two days people were greatly concerned and wondering how they could cope, but after 3 days the normally quiet pavements were full of people walking, and local radio was interviewing people who were saying how much they were enjoying walking instead of driving. Comments included how they were meeting neighbours whilst walking and enjoying the social side, even if just saying a brief "hello", and how they felt so much better thanks to the exercise. Many said they would continue to walk once the road was re-opened, which some did for another week or two, but eventually the car habit crept back in and took over once again. Government could easily encourage and lead on such things if they were minded to, and there are many more examples.

The costs of accidents and insurance is another thing that Government would do well to think about. If Govt would just focus on driving habits and get people to change theirs a bit, we could all benefit. What about the health benefits of being fitter, as in the above example? There are many, many benefits to be gained if Govt didn't have their heads so far into the sand about driving. Please note too, my use of the word "encourage". This is NOT the same as forcing people to do anything, it's just that most people (the general population) need someone to lead them in order to benefit themselves and the country. This should be the Government's job.

What does anyone think about these comments?

Fair points but I think the way to encourage people onto public transport is to improve that public transport. Buses are now reasonably affordable (though I would have retained the £2 cap within urban areas) but frequency on less important routes and at quieter times still needs to be improved, and more estates/residential areas within cities need to be brought back onto bus routes, as they were as recently as the mid-00s.

 

[87electric]

I second that and I understood that would be the deal from day one. I'm amazed people are even surprised that utopia hasn't instantly happened under Labour.

And I’m amazed that anyone thinks utopia under Labour will happen at all in their term. The blame game on the previous incumbent will be Labour’s default, everytime. I look forward to reading the list of positives of Labour in 4 years time, written down on the back of a fag packet, if one can afford such luxury.

 

[Shrop]

I agree with most of them but we are where we are. Many employment sites, particularly for lower paid "working people", are difficult to access any way other than by car - whereas the better paid often work in city centres with good bus and train services, or work from home. The same is often true for out of town shopping. There's a recent thread on here about how land use hasn't been co-ordinated with public transport.

Hopefully the bus reform measures and the funding announced today will go some way to constructing an integrated transport network that offers an alternative for home to work and other journeys to those who don't drive, cant afford to run a car or choose not to use it. Note that just improving railways isn't going to make much difference to this sort of issue.

Thanks, but your comments sound defeatist. What about the point that Government could do a great deal to encourage people to travel by means other than almost always driving? I could sound unbearably virtuous here by relating my own habits during my 40 years of commuting, but at the triple risks of criticism, yet more excuses for using cars, and causing general insomnia, I’ll do so as follows.

I travelled to work by car for less than 20% of the time, which was when I needed it for work purposes, often when I was carrying equipment, or taking one or two passengers when I was car-sharing. Many years of commuting trips were by bicycle between 2 and 5 miles each way, the shorter trips were almost always quicker than by car, the longer trips about the same, my commuting costs were virtually nothing, and it left me a great deal fitter than most of my colleagues.

I also spent 7 years living 50 miles from work, during which time I travelled twice each way each week by train, which involved a 2 mile cycle ride before the station, using the train’s cycle storage, then an 8 mile ride at the far end. My total journey time including a shower on arrival was about the same as driving. Then there was another 9 years commuting 200 miles (each way) once per week by train, with a 3 mile walk at each end, which was often spent usefully making work related calls, or catching up with other calls including to Mrs Shrop. Note that these last two trips involved my nearest stations being between 2 and 8 miles from my home and workplace, but I found ways to use them. There will be vast numbers of opportunities for others to do so too, if they were to open their minds to it.

Of course I’ll sound horribly self-promoting by saying these things, but that genuinely isn’t the intention. What I would like is for people to consider that a great many commuting habits really are possible without being reliant on the car, rather than just defaulting to finding reasons why they’re not possible. Over the years I saved a fortune on commuting costs, I made myself pretty fit and I caused hardly any pollution. Also, I did very little to cause congestion to others, because when cycling I was either almost always going faster than the queues of traffic, or using cycle lanes.

To conclude, I find it hard to understand why Government can’t take more interest in encouraging (and I reiterate that I mean encouraging rather than forcing) commuting and other trips to be made by means other than the car.

 

[nw1]

And I’m amazed that anyone thinks utopia under Labour will happen at all in their term. The blame game on the previous incumbent will be Labour’s default, everytime.

Remind me of who Cameron and Osborne put the blame for their austerity on.

Happens with all governments, irrespective of colour.

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks, but your comments sound defeatist. What about the point that Government could do a great deal to encourage people to travel by means other than almost always driving? I could sound unbearably virtuous here by relating my own habits during my 40 years of commuting, but at the triple risks of criticism, yet more excuses for using cars, and causing general insomnia, I’ll do so as follows.

I travelled to work by car for less than 20% of the time, which was when I needed it for work purposes, often when I was carrying equipment, or taking one or two passengers when I was car-sharing. Many years of commuting trips were by bicycle between 2 and 5 miles each way, the shorter trips were almost always quicker than by car, the longer trips about the same, my commuting costs were virtually nothing, and it left me a great deal fitter than most of my colleagues.

I also spent 7 years living 50 miles from work, during which time I travelled twice each way each week by train, which involved a 2 mile cycle ride before the station, using the train’s cycle storage, then an 8 mile ride at the far end. My total journey time including a shower on arrival was about the same as driving. Then there was another 9 years commuting 200 miles (each way) once per week by train, with a 3 mile walk at each end, which was often spent usefully making work related calls, or catching up with other calls including to Mrs Shrop. Note that these last two trips involved my nearest stations being between 2 and 8 miles from my home and workplace, but I found ways to use them. There will be vast numbers of opportunities for others to do so too, if they were to open their minds to it.

Of course I’ll sound horribly self-promoting by saying these things, but that genuinely isn’t the intention. What I would like is for people to consider that a great many commuting habits really are possible without being reliant on the car, rather than just defaulting to finding reasons why they’re not possible. Over the years I saved a fortune on commuting costs, I made myself pretty fit and I caused hardly any pollution. Also, I did very little to cause congestion to others, because when cycling I was either almost always going faster than the queues of traffic, or using cycle lanes.

To conclude, I find it hard to understand why Government can’t take more interest in encouraging (and I reiterate that I mean encouraging rather than forcing) commuting and other trips to be made by means other than the car.

If we're getting into virtue, my only sustained period of car commuting in a similar career length was ... two weeks when I did vacation work in a factory, and during the summer shutdown they wanted us at the workplace (20 miles from my home and 2 miles from the station) for an 0730 start. Over a similar number of years I've commuted by train, bicycle, Metro and bus, and now work from home so I'm absolutely minimising my contribution to transport congestion and emissions.

I suggest that to provide attractive alternatives to the car involves understanding why people find the car an attractive alternative today, it's necessary to understand people's motivations without necessarily supporting them, and not liking the message isn't a reason to shoot the messenger. I've tried to suggest the steps towards reducing car dependence and I reiterate that I see the focus on buses as being exactly the right approach. But with the best will in the world it's going to take a couple of years at least for better transport networks to start to appear, and much longer for people to adapt their travel patterns or even their home and work locations to fit it. In the meantime making the car more expensive before the alternative comes into being is bad politics. I don't like it any more than anyone else on here, but I can see why Labour might take that line.

 

[Shrop]

If we're getting into virtue, my only sustained period of car commuting in a similar career length was ... two weeks when I did vacation work in a factory, and during the summer shutdown they wanted us at the workplace (20 miles from my home and 2 miles from the station) for an 0730 start. Over a similar number of years I've commuted by train, bicycle, Metro and bus, and now work from home so I'm absolutely minimising my contribution to transport congestion and emissions.

I suggest that to provide attractive alternatives to the car involves understanding why people find the car an attractive alternative today, it's necessary to understand people's motivations without necessarily supporting them, and not liking the message isn't a reason to shoot the messenger. I've tried to suggest the steps towards reducing car dependence and I reiterate that I see the focus on buses as being exactly the right approach. But with the best will in the world it's going to take a couple of years at least for better transport networks to start to appear, and much longer for people to adapt their travel patterns or even their home and work locations to fit it. In the meantime making the car more expensive before the alternative comes into being is bad politics. I don't like it any more than anyone else on here, but I can see why Labour might take that line.

My intention wasn't to be virtuous, I specifically didn't want to do that, I only wanted to indicate that there are ways to use cars less. I agree with much of what you say, it's very hard to change deeply entrenched habits, however as I said upthread, something like a forced road closure due to a gas main rupture, can lead to changed habits within days, which people soon appreciate, if only the habits could be encouraged.
The one thing I would disagree on is that a few pence on fuel prices is bad politics. As I've already said, it really isn't, especially when drivers already expected it. What is bad politics is upsetting tranches of the electorate like farmers and the elderly, for reasons which are far more discriminatory, and which raise far less, than putting a few pence on fuel.

 

[nw1]

The one thing I would disagree on is that a few pence on fuel prices is bad politics. As I've already said, it really isn't, especially when drivers already expected it. What is bad politics is upsetting tranches of the electorate like farmers and the elderly, for reasons which are far more discriminatory, and which raise far less, than putting a few pence on fuel.

But should the needs of farmers come above the needs of those who need to drive for work, shopping, etc? Isn't the extra tax on farmers only for assets above a million?

 

[Shrop]

But should the needs of farmers come above the needs of those who need to drive for work, shopping, etc? Isn't the extra tax on farmers only for assets above a million?

I'm not sure you read my previous posts about this? Take your shopping comment - most people probably have a large shop within 5 miles of where they live, and their cars will do around 10 miles per litre, so the return trip will cost an extra 5p. In the last 2 years, according to "Which?", grocery shopping has increased by over 25%. So the cost of, say, £50 of shopping has increased by £12.50, and you're suggesting that it's right not to raise the cost of getting to the shop by 5p? Please tell me why this 5p is so important ...?

 

[DarloRich]

why should farmers avoid tax? If they get a free pass why not nurses or doctors or teachers or policemen

 

[nw1]

I'm not sure you read my previous posts about this? Take your shopping comment - most people probably have a large shop within 5 miles of where they live, and their cars will do around 10 miles per litre, so the return trip will cost an extra 5p. In the last 2 years, according to "Which?", grocery shopping has increased by over 25%. So the cost of, say, £50 of shopping has increased by £12.50, and you're suggesting that it's right not to raise the cost of getting to the shop by 5p? Please tell me why this 5p is so important ...?

I see what you mean but it will be spun as a "war on the motorist" by Labour's enemies, and given that many people are motorists, this could impact on their popularity significantly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2024 ==

why should farmers avoid tax? If they get a free pass why not nurses or doctors or teachers or policemen

They shout louder than nurses, doctors and police officers.

 

[DarloRich]

They shout louder than nurses, doctors and police officers.

dirty student Marxist revolutionary just stop oil protesters should be birched for blocking roads and delaying ambulances but solid, salt of the earth yeoman farmers, led by million/billionaires ( who pay less tax than a shop worker) should be applauded for blocking roads and delaying ambulances.

Almost like there are hypocritical double standards at play.

 

[ainsworth74]

Big investment in bus services around the country, reversing a key Thatcher legacy:

'London-style' bus services planned for England with £1bn boost

The Department for Transport says funding will be allocated based on levels of deprivation and population.

www.bbc.co.uk

Somewhat frustrating that they're still ballsing up their comms strategy so stupidly. If they had this in their back pocket why didn't they annouce it as the same time as the increase of the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 per journey? A policy announcement which is: "We're increasing the bus cap to £3 for a single journey, but this helps to enable us to invest £1bn in bus services" is a heck of a lot better than doing them separately. Amateur hour I swear.

 

[DarloRich]

Amateur hour I swear.

where is the modern day Alistair Campbell when you need him? Someone in Labour needs to get a grip of media discipline and media presentation and stop the pores running wild.

 

[Shrop]

I see what you mean but it will be spun as a "war on the motorist" by Labour's enemies, and given that many people are motorists, this could impact on their popularity significantly.

This is EXACTLY where Labour need to be strong, ie by ignoring any hysterical and wholly inaccurate cries about any "war on the motorist". There has never been any such "war", and a strong Government would be able to defend their position on this using examples such as mine, citing the vast difference in cost increases, comparing groceries and petrol prices.

If Labour keep pandering pathetically just to keep the voters sweet, then in the long run the voters simply won't respect them. And at least as importantly, neither will foreign leaders such as Trump, who cares little for what people say, he is more likely to admire the strength with which they say it. Starmer & co. have started their reign by being both misguided and weak, which is a great shame when they had so much potential, as handed to them on a plate by the Tories.

 

[DarloRich]

Starmer & co. have started their reign by being both misguided and weak, which is a great shame when they had so much potential, as handed to them on a plate by the Tories.

Is that really true? Is it what the media/social media want you to think?

 

[takno]

Somewhat frustrating that they're still ballsing up their comms strategy so stupidly. If they had this in their back pocket why didn't they annouce it as the same time as the increase of the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 per journey? A policy announcement which is: "We're increasing the bus cap to £3 for a single journey, but this helps to enable us to invest £1bn in bus services" is a heck of a lot better than doing them separately. Amateur hour I swear.

I wondered the same thing. I decided in the end that this is probably totalling up a bunch of money that they had just listed as going out to local authorities and mayors, and it's only after some backlash (quite possibly from within the cabinet) that they realised how starkly awful the budget looked for public transport.

It's not that they're doing the wrong things particularly, it's just that they all seem so caught up in big ideas that they don't have anybody talking to them about how it looks to people on the ground. I was always taught to sell features-advantages-benefits, and they are very much stuck at the advantages stage.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is that really true? Is it what the media/social media want you to think?

The Sue Gray thing has done a lot of damage.

The whole Sue Gray thing was because she didn't like Starmer's other adviser Morgan McSweeney and he didn't like her. So we were treated to weeks of McSweeney briefing against her until Starmer was forced to choose and shoved her out. And we've been treated to weeks of gloating by McSweeney since.

In power for a month and there's a civil war. That's even more efficient than the Tories.

Ironically, McSweeney's justification was that he was better at communications than she was. There's precious little evidence of that since Gray was defenestrated.

 

[Shrop]

Is that really true? Is it what the media/social media want you to think?

I don't pay all that much attention to the (tabloid and social) media, especially when it comes to cars and other transport because it's usually written and distorted by attention-seeking people and reporters. What I do know is what I see at the petrol pumps which is the cheapest fuel for years, just when the prices of everything else are heading quickly upwards. I believe that Labour are keen to raise funds for laudable things like supporting the NHS, and yet they're pinching funds from some groups unnecessarily, when a huge and much bigger pot of money is staring them in the face but they're too weak and misguided to use it.

 

[DarloRich]

Ironically, McSweeney's justification was that he was better at communications than she was. There's precious little evidence of that...

agreed - we aren't hearing the things that ARE getting done, like the illegal migrant removal flights. Now, getting the Tory media to print them is hard enough but without robust control of message you have no chance.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What is bad politics is upsetting tranches of the electorate like farmers

Farmers are always going to be upset under a Labour government. Everything Labour would do is AN ATTACK ON THE COUNTRYSIDE and whatever else they wish to claim. They're still banging on about not being allowed to use dogs to rip foxes to shreds.

Labour haven't been good at the messaging. But then they're pushing against a right-wing media who are deliberately misrepresenting the change. The people who will pay more tax are the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and James "I love Britain so much I moved my business to Singapore" Dyson. And they're upset because their wheeze of "buying a farm" has gone. Ordinary farmers won't pay more.

It's the same with the increase in employer NI. Reeves has clearly increased that tax because it's just about the only tax that Amazon and Tesco can't aggressively avoid. And she's increased the rebates available to small businesses. But instead we have Tesco, who make three billion quid a year profit and whose CEO earns ten million quid a year, saying they can't afford the tax rise. Aye, right. Again, they're just annoyed they can't squirm out of this tax.

 

[43096]

why should farmers avoid tax? If they get a free pass why not nurses or doctors or teachers or policemen

Exactly! Everyone else has to pay inheritance tax if they’re over the threshold. I don’t see why farmers shouldn’t be treated exactly the same.

 

[DarloRich]

Farmers are always going to be upset under a Labour government. Everything Labour would do is AN ATTACK ON THE COUNTRYSIDE and whatever else they wish to claim. They're still banging on about not being allowed to use dogs to rip foxes to shreds.

Labour haven't been good at the messaging. But then they're pushing against a right-wing media who are deliberately misrepresenting the change. The people who will pay more tax are the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and James "I love Britain so much I moved my business to Singapore" Dyson. And they're upset because their wheeze of "buying a farm" has gone. Ordinary farmers won't pay more.

It's the same with the increase in employer NI. Reeves has clearly increased that tax because it's just about the only tax that Amazon and Tesco can't aggressively avoid. And she's increased the rebates available to small businesses. But instead we have Tesco, who make three billion quid a year profit and whose CEO earns ten million quid a year, saying they can't afford the tax rise. Aye, right. Again, they're just annoyed they can't squirm out of this tax.

insert hand clap icon here!

 

[Shrop]

Farmers are always going to be upset under a Labour government. Everything Labour would do is AN ATTACK ON THE COUNTRYSIDE and whatever else they wish to claim. They're still banging on about not being allowed to use dogs to rip foxes to shreds.

Labour haven't been good at the messaging. But then they're pushing against a right-wing media who are deliberately misrepresenting the change. The people who will pay more tax are the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and James "I love Britain so much I moved my business to Singapore" Dyson. And they're upset because their wheeze of "buying a farm" has gone. Ordinary farmers won't pay more.

It's the same with the increase in employer NI. Reeves has clearly increased that tax because it's just about the only tax that Amazon and Tesco can't aggressively avoid. And she's increased the rebates available to small businesses. But instead we have Tesco, who make three billion quid a year profit and whose CEO earns ten million quid a year, saying they can't afford the tax rise. Aye, right. Again, they're just annoyed they can't squirm out of this tax.

Yep, I don't disagree with you. But I still don't understand why they don't dip into the obvious pot of money that I've mentioned, which would then save all this adverse publicity. I understand about the farmers and your comments, but in publicity terms (disregarding any other rights and wrongs), picking on them is about as useful as Thatcher picking on the miners in the 1970s.

 

[DarloRich]

Exactly! Everyone else has to pay inheritance tax if they’re over the threshold. I don’t see why farmers shouldn’t be treated exactly the same.

they aren't being treated the same though - they get a discount!

 

[Tetchytyke]

But I still don't understand why they don't dip into the obvious pot of money that I've mentioned, which would then save all this adverse publicity.

I'm not convinced it would. I get your point, but I think they'd have been clobbered even worse for "taxing the ordinary person". Even though the fuel duty cut disproportionately benefits more wealthy people- these are the people with larger, more fuel-hungry cars, and these are the people with more than one car.

If you added 5p to fuel you'd just have all the truck drivers whingeing instead. It's also something people notice, even if 5p/litre isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

I do think they should have put the 5p back on fuel and kept the bus fare cap at £2, though.

It's interesting that Next and Tesco didn't threaten job losses when the Conservatives put up employer NI, I have to say.

 

[Shrop]

I'm not convinced it would. I get your point, but I think they'd have been clobbered even worse for "taxing the ordinary person". Even though the fuel duty cut disproportionately benefits more wealthy people- these are the people with larger, more fuel-hungry cars, and these are the people with more than one car.

If you added 5p to fuel you'd just have all the truck drivers whingeing instead. It's also something people notice, even if 5p/litre isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

I do think they should have put the 5p back on fuel and kept the bus fare cap at £2, though.

It's interesting that Next and Tesco didn't threaten job losses when the Conservatives put up employer NI, I have to say.

Did you read my posts at #609 and #615? Labour needs strong leadership rather than weak pandering to attention-seeking reporters. It isn't "taxing the ordinary person", it's fund raising to BENEFIT "the ordinary person", and doing so via petrol prices is far less discriminatory than most measures which they seem hell-bent on introducing, despite the furore they cause. There's also the fact that truck drivers don't generally use petrol - it just needs diligent management.

 

[43096]

they aren't being treated the same though - they get a discount!

True!

Whinging farmers again. Have you ever met a poor farmer?

 

[Tetchytyke]

and doing so via petrol prices is far less discriminatory than most measures which they seem hell-bent on introducing

I don't agree with this part. Most people buy road fuel, whether it is petrol or diesel, and would notice the rise. And road hauliers would whinge, and whinge vociferously, as the last Labour government found out.

I think they could- and probably should- have put the 5p back on but in conjunction with keeping the bus fare cap at £2. But there would have been a lot of blowback.

I understand your point. 5p on a litre isn't much in the grand scheme of things. But people do have an unfortunate tendency to sweat the small stuff.

By comparison "farmers with an estate worth more than three million quid" is a rather niche category of people, which is why we have "common people" like James Dyson, Jeremy Clarkson, and Carole Bamford leading the whining.

 

[nw1]

By comparison "farmers with an estate worth more than three million quid" is a rather niche category of people, which is why we have "common people" like James Dyson, Jeremy Clarkson, and Carole Bamford leading the whining.

Bamford as in JCB Bamford? I seem to remember one of them, perhaps the founder, perhaps the son of the founder, being strongly pro-Tory in the past.

Clarkson is well known for being a gobby loudmouth with less than impeccable behaviour. And just don't get me started on Dyson.