Do you want to discuss boring politics? (224 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Trouble is, like parking, there are lots of apps. What really pisses me off is when you need to use an app and there is either no mobile signal or crap mobile data speeds which is often the case on the Hampshire/ Dorset coast.
At least with petrol you can use a credit card.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
All new public charge points have to accept payment by card... its only the older stations that are app only
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Well that’s a step in the right direction.
Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
It's a pain in the arse to pay by app in almost any car park anywhere. The option of using your card should be made a legal necessity when these machines are manufactured. It sounds a backwards step but at least it works . Done in 20 seconds.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Oh what a surprise
It's the Tories in disguise. Even the Tories realised the fallacy of PFI
It's the Tories in disguise. Even the Tories realised the fallacy of PFI
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
That’s a really interesting article. It seems that the Tories did recognise that PFI wasn’t a great idea, and fairly early on. But Blair and Brown promoted it and legislated to facilitate it, keeping investment off the public books. IIRC accountancy rule changes actually brought PFI back into the public books to add to the high rental payments, inflexibility of support services and developments on top of the common reduction in beds to keep the schemes “affordable” - which has helped create the problems that Labour are now promising to fix.
The observation about management consultants rang bells with me. In the 90s I attended two workshops facilitated by the same management consultants. The first was based on their analysis that there were too many beds in the area, the second - 12 months later- was predicated on their analysis that there were too few beds in the area.
It will be interesting to see how Labour getting into bed with captains of industry works out this time.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The way it is designed to work out, maximum private profit and minimum public service.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
PFI needs to get in the bin, people just need to grow up about borrowing to invest in infrastructure.
Nuskyblue
Well-Known Member
New ones should be but aren't. The ones going in around Coventry are app only and a lot of them are < 1 year old.
Most fast/rapid chargers take card along with a kidney. Boy are they expensive.
nicksar
Well-Known Member
Going back approx 8 years I bought a car off and Indian doctor who worked at uhcw he was selling up and had managed to get a job in an Australian hospital,he said uhcw had to find £1 million a month to pay the PFI loans.
I was staggered tbh ,I don't know if it is actually the truth but what a disgusting state of affairs if true.
I was staggered tbh ,I don't know if it is actually the truth but what a disgusting state of affairs if true.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Will the OBR need to publish an opinion on that?
nicksar
Well-Known Member
No idea Malc, I'm not as clued up as many of you on here on these matters,it just seems a recipe for failure to me.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Too complex an argument to have in an election campaign, whereas PFI is extremely simple
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Well, they usually have something to say about increasing public borrowing and national debt.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
The PFI costs at UHCW are pretty enormous and the operating company very inflexible when trying to change things. The last annual report shows £27m in mainly PFI interest and nearly £7m in mainly PFI capital charges. The doctor you mention was understating the PFI cost enormously.
Still, we can rest easy that the corridors are regularly painted to keep them the contractual white.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
And extremely expensive.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
The problem is that, given the cost of EVs, it will probably be the average working man who will be paying through the nose to drive those more polluting, noisier cars. Just as is happening with your mate Khan’s ULEZ. The tiffs can afford compliant cars, the worse off can’t,
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
They can often make EVs more expensive for a journey than an ICE, especially diesel.
If my 2010. diesel passes and was 3k 3 years ago I don't see the problem for Londoners yet at least?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Tons of older cars qualify. I was reading an article in The Mail of all publications about it. Tons of old jaguars, BMW’s, Audi’s, Bentley continentals and at the other end of the scale any petrol mini. So in the case of the mini a 24 year old car is compliant.
Yep I guess the fear will be eventually things will tighten up who knows who'll be mayor by then?
nicksar
Well-Known Member
All classic cars over 40 years old are free of Ulez payments,a 5.2litre 1966 Dodge Charger is the way to go
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
So basically ULEZ collects no money then. I guess Londoners are just whinging for nothing then.
Although this article says there were £218 million in unpaid fines.
Most drivers hit with £180 Ulez fine since expansion have failed to pay it
TfL says almost a million fines were ‘outstanding’ – or unpaid after a month – leaving it owed £218,316,553
www.standard.co.uk
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I wonder why the ULEZ was introduced then? If it affects no one. Except it does.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
ULEZ is recognising the negative externality of car pollution and attributing a cost to this in the hope of influencing behavioural change.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Or just raising revenue.
ULEZ expansion is more about money than clean air
Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) expanded to cover all London boroughs this week. This regressive levy will cost drivers £12.50 a day and will not make significant headway in terms of cleaning up London’s air.
www.taxpayersalliance.com
I was responding to a post suggesting that hardly any cars are affected by it, which surely can’t be the case.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Let those poor people people take the bus
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Or just raising revenue.
ULEZ expansion is more about money than clean air
Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) expanded to cover all London boroughs this week. This regressive levy will cost drivers £12.50 a day and will not make significant headway in terms of cleaning up London’s air.
I was responding to a post suggesting that hardly any cars are affected by it, which surely can’t be the case.
Of course it does. Most diesels built before 2016 don’t qualify
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Or just raising revenue.
ULEZ expansion is more about money than clean air
Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) expanded to cover all London boroughs this week. This regressive levy will cost drivers £12.50 a day and will not make significant headway in terms of cleaning up London’s air.
I was responding to a post suggesting that hardly any cars are affected by it, which surely can’t be the case.
This is just a rant from the TPA, it’s not a serious critique of ULEZ, it’s a far right think tank FFS.
The aim of all clean air zones is cleaner air because the government lost a court case: ClientEarth, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2013] UKSC 25 (1 May 2013)
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
The judiciary in general and especially the Supreme Court, introduced by Labour, is pretty left wing. The recent decision in relation to oil drilling in Surrey was yet another example of their bias and lack of common sense.