The Henley by-election needs to be a moment to stop and reflect on a number of really fundamental issues. Most immediately I'd like to consider:
(i) why we did not get a much better result after all the effort which went in
(ii) why the usual campaign plan of throwing paper at an electorate until they raise their hands in surrender seems increasingly to be stuttering
(iii) why much of the tenor of the campaign was attacking the Tories rather than presenting what we stand for
(iv) why we got a candidate - lovely man, very able, clearly - in from Plymouth when there was a perhaps less charismatic but perfectly able local candidate to allow us to add that line of attack to our campaign
(v) how we can challenge the empty but strangely compelling Tory juggernaut before it gathers too much speed to be stopped
More strategically, it would be worth reflecting on a number of issues, including:
(i) whether the current party image, which is now quite old, could reasonably be revamped just as the other main parties have done in recent years with much success
(ii) what are our key messages, our 'unique selling points'. We're all for freedom, justice, liberty, kindness to goldfish and apple pie but any fule kno that people vote on bread and butter issues. That may grate with many of our idealistic members (who I am not seeking to fault here: I, too, honestly subscribe to the ideology at the heart of who we are, wonderfully demonstrated by the number of volunteers who came to Henley) but it would be worth considering very seriously what Joe and Josephine Public think of when they think 'Lib Dem'.
(iii) how we win a future General Election. I remain mindlessly ambitious because I think it's the only way for a serious party to operate. St Paddy aimed for the stars when we were so low in the opinion polls that special numbers had to be created for us, which inspired us and made voters take us seriously. That remains compelling.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Henley campaign. It was nice to feel a special sense of involvement for a campaign local to me, although I put in only a fraction of the time and effort of many others, to whom I doff my imaginary hat.
However, I cannot conceal my crushing disappointment at the result. My fundamental question is how many more such disappointments must occur before we start to look at our historically successful but now faltering campaign machine.
Friday, 27 June 2008
Monday, 23 June 2008
EUROPE GETS INTERESTING
There is an excellent piece on libdemvoice from Thomas Hemsley on the future of the EU and I posted the following comments (amended) which I would like to place here to see if anyone has anything to add:
I am not 100% in agreement over the ideas for institutions which others have written about. And there, in a nutshell, lies the fundamental problem with Europe - all 350m of us have slightly varying views.
Rather than an overarching higher authority to govern our lives in detail, what we Europeans need is an underlying set of principles to bring us together to help us build a new, significantly less interfering European edifice, which would be akin to the US constitution. The statement of principles - let's call it a 'constitution' for clarity - would need to be brief, flexible (within reason) and it would need to reflect the many variations on political systems which exist in Europe.
Philosophically, Europe emerged as a Napoleonic (essentially Roman), French-led system of formal commissioners, 'cabinets', councils and such like whereas the new, enlarged Europe needs a more anglo-saxon model which allows for differences to co-exist within a unified system based more on co-operation than on conformity.
The many discussions on this subject are fascinating as most seem to be coming down to the simple view that a radical reinvention of Europe is needed, one I wholeheartedly subscribe to.
Here's a radical suggestion then: why not get someone in from outside Europe to draft the new document. An American, perhaps..?
I am not 100% in agreement over the ideas for institutions which others have written about. And there, in a nutshell, lies the fundamental problem with Europe - all 350m of us have slightly varying views.
Rather than an overarching higher authority to govern our lives in detail, what we Europeans need is an underlying set of principles to bring us together to help us build a new, significantly less interfering European edifice, which would be akin to the US constitution. The statement of principles - let's call it a 'constitution' for clarity - would need to be brief, flexible (within reason) and it would need to reflect the many variations on political systems which exist in Europe.
Philosophically, Europe emerged as a Napoleonic (essentially Roman), French-led system of formal commissioners, 'cabinets', councils and such like whereas the new, enlarged Europe needs a more anglo-saxon model which allows for differences to co-exist within a unified system based more on co-operation than on conformity.
The many discussions on this subject are fascinating as most seem to be coming down to the simple view that a radical reinvention of Europe is needed, one I wholeheartedly subscribe to.
Here's a radical suggestion then: why not get someone in from outside Europe to draft the new document. An American, perhaps..?
Monday, 16 June 2008
LET'S ABOLISH THE EU.
So British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thinks the EU should forge ahead with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty despite the Irish 'no' in their recent referendum. Is this the moment the EU cracks?
When in the early 1990s Danish voters similarly opposed the Maastricht Treaty, EC commissioner Jacques Delors said the rest of Europe should forge ahead and our Prime Minister, John Major (remember him?) said no, we all move forward together or not at all. I was told by an old lecturer of mine that that was a good evening to be British in the bars of Copenhagen...
Once upon a time British governments had a reasonably principled approach to Europe.
Britain has always been crap over Europe but we have also always been absolutely clear than the EU is an inclusive club. Britain has long championed a wider Europe to embrace more states. We have also been very collegiate in our approach to Europe, in quite stark contrast to some other major European states (nobody say France, as they'll sulk in their Gallic way).
So to hear Brown coming out with this kind of Euro-tosh once again demonstrates that British governments are supremely idiotic about the whole edifice. We don't seem to have a set of core guiding principles for our relationship with the EU. We don't seem to know what we want from the EU or where we think it should go. We lack a 'big idea' for Europe. Given that the genesis of Europe was out of the destruction of the Second World War and that it was an inspired - and successful - attempt to stop the various European wars, this is extremely sad.
I am a ridiculously enthusiastic Europhile but I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the current model needs to be completely thrown out, to be replaced with an entirely new system.
I fervently believe in the 'ever closer union', freedom of movement and in the previously warring states of Europe being tied into working together by a higher authority, as Europe's patron saint, Jean Monnet, had it originally. But perhaps we need to have a 'declaration of independence' moment for Europe where we try to put down the essence of what Europe should be, rather than just tweaking the system endlessly and badly.
You could do this with a few easy ground rules. I would suggest the following:
1. the new 'constitution' should be brief - lets say two sides of A4, max. (NB: any Tories/UKIP reading this, countries have constitutions, it's true, but so do golf clubs)
2. the new rules must entrench proper democracy, not rule by government cliques and unelected Eurocrats.
3. The citizens of each country should be required to agree to the new rules in national referenda. Any changes to this basic set of rules should require similar votes.
4. The new rules should NOT specify religion, geographical area or anything else that such an institution has no role in. If the French demand this, the French should be poilitely requested to f*** off and form their own petty union with French Guyana and Mururoa.
5. A new European administration should have no role - none, zero, zilch - in agriculture or fisheries, other than working with states to set standards for environmental protection. If the French want subsidies for their farmers, let the French pay for them.
As for Britain, well, we need to decide just what we want to achieve from Europe. If our governments continue to be so abysmally useless with regard to what remains one of the most pioneering international institutions, perhaps we should consider our position as well. We were given the chance to lead Europe after 1945 and we blew it. We can still play a very positive role, but in the hands of functionaries like Brown and David Miliband, that's never going to happen. David Cameron certainly won't do anything positive on Europe as his party remains riven over the subject. Plus he has no policies.
We need someone to think big on Europe. I suggest Paddy Ashdown
When in the early 1990s Danish voters similarly opposed the Maastricht Treaty, EC commissioner Jacques Delors said the rest of Europe should forge ahead and our Prime Minister, John Major (remember him?) said no, we all move forward together or not at all. I was told by an old lecturer of mine that that was a good evening to be British in the bars of Copenhagen...
Once upon a time British governments had a reasonably principled approach to Europe.
Britain has always been crap over Europe but we have also always been absolutely clear than the EU is an inclusive club. Britain has long championed a wider Europe to embrace more states. We have also been very collegiate in our approach to Europe, in quite stark contrast to some other major European states (nobody say France, as they'll sulk in their Gallic way).
So to hear Brown coming out with this kind of Euro-tosh once again demonstrates that British governments are supremely idiotic about the whole edifice. We don't seem to have a set of core guiding principles for our relationship with the EU. We don't seem to know what we want from the EU or where we think it should go. We lack a 'big idea' for Europe. Given that the genesis of Europe was out of the destruction of the Second World War and that it was an inspired - and successful - attempt to stop the various European wars, this is extremely sad.
I am a ridiculously enthusiastic Europhile but I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the current model needs to be completely thrown out, to be replaced with an entirely new system.
I fervently believe in the 'ever closer union', freedom of movement and in the previously warring states of Europe being tied into working together by a higher authority, as Europe's patron saint, Jean Monnet, had it originally. But perhaps we need to have a 'declaration of independence' moment for Europe where we try to put down the essence of what Europe should be, rather than just tweaking the system endlessly and badly.
You could do this with a few easy ground rules. I would suggest the following:
1. the new 'constitution' should be brief - lets say two sides of A4, max. (NB: any Tories/UKIP reading this, countries have constitutions, it's true, but so do golf clubs)
2. the new rules must entrench proper democracy, not rule by government cliques and unelected Eurocrats.
3. The citizens of each country should be required to agree to the new rules in national referenda. Any changes to this basic set of rules should require similar votes.
4. The new rules should NOT specify religion, geographical area or anything else that such an institution has no role in. If the French demand this, the French should be poilitely requested to f*** off and form their own petty union with French Guyana and Mururoa.
5. A new European administration should have no role - none, zero, zilch - in agriculture or fisheries, other than working with states to set standards for environmental protection. If the French want subsidies for their farmers, let the French pay for them.
As for Britain, well, we need to decide just what we want to achieve from Europe. If our governments continue to be so abysmally useless with regard to what remains one of the most pioneering international institutions, perhaps we should consider our position as well. We were given the chance to lead Europe after 1945 and we blew it. We can still play a very positive role, but in the hands of functionaries like Brown and David Miliband, that's never going to happen. David Cameron certainly won't do anything positive on Europe as his party remains riven over the subject. Plus he has no policies.
We need someone to think big on Europe. I suggest Paddy Ashdown
Thursday, 12 June 2008
DAVID DAVIS, MAN OF PRINCIPLE. Or...
So David Davis has resigned and will stand again for his seat. He will stand on a ticket of the Tory Party not committing to repeal the 42 day limit if it gets elected and he will be elected. Golly, what a statement!
Two possible disasters for the Tories could occur: (i)if he is unopposed he will be elected without a vote. The result, an utterly pointless display (ii) if he is opposed but the good voters of Haltemprice and Howden decide that this really is just a gimmick and don't bother to turn out, he could have a lower number of votes than he did in 2005. The result of this would be that he would just look foolish.
And why aren't the LDs, the real party of civil liberties, of repealing draconiam legislation, of opposing ID cards not putting up a candidate? Come on Nickersoff, this doesn't 'transcend party politics'. The Tories are posturing with no substance and we could show them up as doing so.
Missed opportunity di tutti missed opportunities...
Can I suggest that everyone comes to Henley where grown up politics are taking place?
Two possible disasters for the Tories could occur: (i)if he is unopposed he will be elected without a vote. The result, an utterly pointless display (ii) if he is opposed but the good voters of Haltemprice and Howden decide that this really is just a gimmick and don't bother to turn out, he could have a lower number of votes than he did in 2005. The result of this would be that he would just look foolish.
And why aren't the LDs, the real party of civil liberties, of repealing draconiam legislation, of opposing ID cards not putting up a candidate? Come on Nickersoff, this doesn't 'transcend party politics'. The Tories are posturing with no substance and we could show them up as doing so.
Missed opportunity di tutti missed opportunities...
Can I suggest that everyone comes to Henley where grown up politics are taking place?
HENLEY: GUESS WHAT? IT'S A TWO HORSE RACE!
From the local Herald newspaper today:
'Liberal Democrat Stephen Kearney is the only candidate likely to beat the Conservatives in the race to succeed Tory Boris Johnson as Henley MP, according to Ladbrokes bookmakers.
'They have put the parliamentary hopeful at 6-1 to win the by-election on Thursday, June 26. The Liberal Democrats came second at the General Election in 2005...Ladbrokes see Mr Kearney 49 as the clear challenger to Conservative John Howell, and have rated Labour candidate Richard McKenzie's chances at 100-1.'
'Liberal Democrat Stephen Kearney is the only candidate likely to beat the Conservatives in the race to succeed Tory Boris Johnson as Henley MP, according to Ladbrokes bookmakers.
'They have put the parliamentary hopeful at 6-1 to win the by-election on Thursday, June 26. The Liberal Democrats came second at the General Election in 2005...Ladbrokes see Mr Kearney 49 as the clear challenger to Conservative John Howell, and have rated Labour candidate Richard McKenzie's chances at 100-1.'
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
CRUCIAL ISSUE RE TORY SLEAZE PART 94
The MEP 'Den Dover' must be a made up character from a Jilly Cooper novel, surely...
Muscular Tory MEP, Den Dover, threw down his briefcase and tore off his regimental tie. His wife gasped at her husband who, despite his advanced years and his creative approach to financial matters, still managed to excite and inspire her in equal measure. Breathlessly she asked:
"Would you like a drink, darling?"
"Yes, thanks. I'm sorry Dorothea, its just this damned Parliamentary sleaze allegation business. Don't those foreigners realise that we Tories do things differently? That's the trouble with John Frenchman. He's too corrupt himself to realise that we Tories have always been creative with our accounts."
"Oh darling, your feeble attempts to weasel out of these allegations make me go weak."
Dorothea Dover loved her man, corrupt or not.
Muscular Tory MEP, Den Dover, threw down his briefcase and tore off his regimental tie. His wife gasped at her husband who, despite his advanced years and his creative approach to financial matters, still managed to excite and inspire her in equal measure. Breathlessly she asked:
"Would you like a drink, darling?"
"Yes, thanks. I'm sorry Dorothea, its just this damned Parliamentary sleaze allegation business. Don't those foreigners realise that we Tories do things differently? That's the trouble with John Frenchman. He's too corrupt himself to realise that we Tories have always been creative with our accounts."
"Oh darling, your feeble attempts to weasel out of these allegations make me go weak."
Dorothea Dover loved her man, corrupt or not.
Friday, 6 June 2008
THE WIND IS UP IN OXFORDSHIRE
Oxfordshire now has its first wind farm (when is a new name going to be given to these facilities?). The Westmill Wind Farm near Shrivenham in the LD controlled Vale has just gone live and the five 1.3mw turbines are expected to generate enough energy for 2,500 homes.
A useful point was made by the Chief Exec of the co-operative to challenge those who complain that wind turbines only work when the wind blows. Coal fired power stations only use about 40% of the energy in coal: most of the rest goes up in smoke quite literally.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking that the windmills are actually attractive. I'd love one or two in my village, which is very high up and very windy almost every day of the year. For aesthetic value, the five new wind turbines beat the alternative power supplier for the county, the charming Didcot Power Station, which is visible from muich of the area.
A useful point was made by the Chief Exec of the co-operative to challenge those who complain that wind turbines only work when the wind blows. Coal fired power stations only use about 40% of the energy in coal: most of the rest goes up in smoke quite literally.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking that the windmills are actually attractive. I'd love one or two in my village, which is very high up and very windy almost every day of the year. For aesthetic value, the five new wind turbines beat the alternative power supplier for the county, the charming Didcot Power Station, which is visible from muich of the area.
NOT WAVING BUT DROWNING
So the government wants to introduce free swimming for everyone, starting with pensioners. Let's consider this a little further.
The government introduced free bus travel for the over 60s. Its a nice idea and it is of course popular among that age group but as many people have pointed out there are many more groups in our country who could benefit from free bus travel. Young people; people on benefits the government desperately wants to get into work; less well off people; how about the families of foreign soldiers serving abroad who may be cut off in a strange country in a dull barracks. Instead many older couples will now have the option of leaving the Mercedes in the garage for their jaunt into Oxford or wherever. Free bus travel is a good idea in principle but as a general benefit for everyone it is just daft.
Second, the free bus travel has been woefully underfunded. The government did the equivalent of throwing some coins to the children following a carriage and then expected them to live off this. The calculations behind the funding have been so simplistic and wide of the mark as to be pointless. Free bus travel has hobbled most local authorities who still don't know the full cost and won't until a year has passed at least. Free swimming will have similar consequences, regardless of any vague blandishments from 'Mascara' Burnham and his colleagues.
The third point to note link in with this earlier one. Swimming pools are a discretionary service provided by local authorities. Few people will realise that: Councils don't need to provide public baths. So, assume similar funding pressures for local authorities from free swimming in future years, aggravated by the pisspoor Council Tax system and what is going to happen? That's right, the bright faced, make-up wearing nipper in Westminster: swimming pools up and down the land will start to close.
Once again, the Labour government has had a reasonably good idea, to get more people active. But once again they have given it only the most cursory consideration before foisting it on to others to implement.
I have long taken the view that people don't fully value free services so a nominal charge would be good to simply avoid people taking advantage. If bus travel for the over 60s was £1 a trip that would still represent a significant benefit to them and it would ensure that only those people who needed to use the service did so.
Similarly, charging a nominal rate for swimming - again, £1 springs to mind as reasonable - would still make it eminently more affordable for everyone while still ensuring that people weren't going along to their local pool to keep warm or to wash their clothes in the showers (okay, I'm getting a little UKIP with this one...).
The government introduced free bus travel for the over 60s. Its a nice idea and it is of course popular among that age group but as many people have pointed out there are many more groups in our country who could benefit from free bus travel. Young people; people on benefits the government desperately wants to get into work; less well off people; how about the families of foreign soldiers serving abroad who may be cut off in a strange country in a dull barracks. Instead many older couples will now have the option of leaving the Mercedes in the garage for their jaunt into Oxford or wherever. Free bus travel is a good idea in principle but as a general benefit for everyone it is just daft.
Second, the free bus travel has been woefully underfunded. The government did the equivalent of throwing some coins to the children following a carriage and then expected them to live off this. The calculations behind the funding have been so simplistic and wide of the mark as to be pointless. Free bus travel has hobbled most local authorities who still don't know the full cost and won't until a year has passed at least. Free swimming will have similar consequences, regardless of any vague blandishments from 'Mascara' Burnham and his colleagues.
The third point to note link in with this earlier one. Swimming pools are a discretionary service provided by local authorities. Few people will realise that: Councils don't need to provide public baths. So, assume similar funding pressures for local authorities from free swimming in future years, aggravated by the pisspoor Council Tax system and what is going to happen? That's right, the bright faced, make-up wearing nipper in Westminster: swimming pools up and down the land will start to close.
Once again, the Labour government has had a reasonably good idea, to get more people active. But once again they have given it only the most cursory consideration before foisting it on to others to implement.
I have long taken the view that people don't fully value free services so a nominal charge would be good to simply avoid people taking advantage. If bus travel for the over 60s was £1 a trip that would still represent a significant benefit to them and it would ensure that only those people who needed to use the service did so.
Similarly, charging a nominal rate for swimming - again, £1 springs to mind as reasonable - would still make it eminently more affordable for everyone while still ensuring that people weren't going along to their local pool to keep warm or to wash their clothes in the showers (okay, I'm getting a little UKIP with this one...).
Thursday, 5 June 2008
GREEN? MOI?
Well stap me vitals and call me a Frenchman. Dave has gone back on his support for higher road tax for bigger cars. Dave’s party says this is the wrong time to ‘clobber the motorist’. And he is of course right, except he’s a Tory and the middle name of every Tory politician is ‘cynical’.
The Tories steadfastly reject that they are abandoning their ‘green agenda’ and who would doubt their sincerity?
There is one point where I coincide with our blue adversaries on this. I share the view that backdating the higher car tax for bigger cars to those bought between 2001 and 2006 is wrong as I was always brought up to understand that the rule of law should not be retrospective. A higher tax for new cars is therefore entirely legitimate, a tax for cars people already own is not.
Still, it remains to be seen just how far John and Jennifer Tory row back on their planet hugging tendencies. I reckon all the way back to the boat house and into their 4x4s would be a pretty good guess…
The Tories steadfastly reject that they are abandoning their ‘green agenda’ and who would doubt their sincerity?
There is one point where I coincide with our blue adversaries on this. I share the view that backdating the higher car tax for bigger cars to those bought between 2001 and 2006 is wrong as I was always brought up to understand that the rule of law should not be retrospective. A higher tax for new cars is therefore entirely legitimate, a tax for cars people already own is not.
Still, it remains to be seen just how far John and Jennifer Tory row back on their planet hugging tendencies. I reckon all the way back to the boat house and into their 4x4s would be a pretty good guess…
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
PLUS CA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST TOUJOURS THE BLOOMING SAME
'Breaking news' from the BBC is that US Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has pledged to support Israel, protect its security and to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
While all these pledges are fundamentally decent - and he was speaking to the rabid AIPAC - you feel he could have maybe been a bit more even handed in his first foreign policy statement. How about justice for the Palestinians? Or dialogue with Iran, perhaps circumventing loony President Ahmedinejad, rather than just a bald threat? What about telling Israel to butt out of its regular incursions into Lebanon to help give that ever crippled country some stability? Golan Heights returned to Syria, perhaps?
No chance of any of that. With a single bound, any hint that Obama might be something different flies out of the window and heads fall across the Middle East. But then, what did anyone expect. The American political system is in many ways more sclerotic than even the most repressive old communist regime.
I suppose the best we can hope for is Bush pulling a comprehensive peace deal out of the bag before he is turfed out next January. Sheesh...
[Looking forward to the anonymous posts telling me I'm all sorts of b*st*rd...]
While all these pledges are fundamentally decent - and he was speaking to the rabid AIPAC - you feel he could have maybe been a bit more even handed in his first foreign policy statement. How about justice for the Palestinians? Or dialogue with Iran, perhaps circumventing loony President Ahmedinejad, rather than just a bald threat? What about telling Israel to butt out of its regular incursions into Lebanon to help give that ever crippled country some stability? Golan Heights returned to Syria, perhaps?
No chance of any of that. With a single bound, any hint that Obama might be something different flies out of the window and heads fall across the Middle East. But then, what did anyone expect. The American political system is in many ways more sclerotic than even the most repressive old communist regime.
I suppose the best we can hope for is Bush pulling a comprehensive peace deal out of the bag before he is turfed out next January. Sheesh...
[Looking forward to the anonymous posts telling me I'm all sorts of b*st*rd...]
A TRANSPORT POLICY TO SHOUT ABOUT
The latest announcement from the LDs is on a transport policy which includes a lot of good stuff.
Road pricing is fine if it replaces fuel duty and road tax, rather than being an additional tax. Why not have 'oyster cards' in every car, van and lorry? The technology exists and, having paid even more this morning to fill up my car, I can see the value in cutting fuel duty.
The other side to my personal experience is that I drive 46 miles a day to and from work. Alternatives are difficult but available and if driving this distance becomes a greater cost per mile than just the obvious cost of petrol [yes, I know there are others on top] I will have to consider them. I am already mulling over dragging my unfit carcass to work on a bike, since the rise in fuel duty has made it a much more sensible prospect.
As for taking buses back under the control of local authorities, the only word, to be repeated until exhaustion overtakes me, is 'hallelujah'. The day Stagecoach goes out of business will be one for a 24 hour party. The day local buses become frequent, affordable and not driven by manic depressive sociopaths will be a major inducement to people to use buses more.
I have to say that the proposal for a high speed rail network wil be more problematic as there is so much resistance in Whitehall to any such improvements. The Channel Tunnel link through Kent was a joke that most French people still chuckle about and the crossrail project in London has been talked about since I was in short pants. I still doubt it will ever happen.
The new fund for rural transport hints at subsidies which might not be the best way to go. In my area it is difficult to make bus services user friendly and profitable. Only a handful of routes in Oxfordshire make money, the rest are paid for by the taxpayer. We need to be careful on this one.
However, two and a half cheers for a comprehensive policy which promises action. I wonder what Dave thinks?
But then, so does everyone...
Road pricing is fine if it replaces fuel duty and road tax, rather than being an additional tax. Why not have 'oyster cards' in every car, van and lorry? The technology exists and, having paid even more this morning to fill up my car, I can see the value in cutting fuel duty.
The other side to my personal experience is that I drive 46 miles a day to and from work. Alternatives are difficult but available and if driving this distance becomes a greater cost per mile than just the obvious cost of petrol [yes, I know there are others on top] I will have to consider them. I am already mulling over dragging my unfit carcass to work on a bike, since the rise in fuel duty has made it a much more sensible prospect.
As for taking buses back under the control of local authorities, the only word, to be repeated until exhaustion overtakes me, is 'hallelujah'. The day Stagecoach goes out of business will be one for a 24 hour party. The day local buses become frequent, affordable and not driven by manic depressive sociopaths will be a major inducement to people to use buses more.
I have to say that the proposal for a high speed rail network wil be more problematic as there is so much resistance in Whitehall to any such improvements. The Channel Tunnel link through Kent was a joke that most French people still chuckle about and the crossrail project in London has been talked about since I was in short pants. I still doubt it will ever happen.
The new fund for rural transport hints at subsidies which might not be the best way to go. In my area it is difficult to make bus services user friendly and profitable. Only a handful of routes in Oxfordshire make money, the rest are paid for by the taxpayer. We need to be careful on this one.
However, two and a half cheers for a comprehensive policy which promises action. I wonder what Dave thinks?
But then, so does everyone...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
