Well, hello all - I'm back!
I thought I'd missed a few months - turns out it's just over a year. Luckily, I am fully refreshed and full with happiness and love towards my fellow man, so expect lots of lovely, positive messages.
...er...this may not be entirely true...
Since I last made a contribution to this bloglet, there have been a few changes in the world. I think you know what I'm talking about, here. A brave, new world was on offer. A fresh faced (too fresh faced?) newcomer sprang onto the stage promising a new approach to politics. I've flirted with the Lib Dems for a few years now. Charles Kennedy seemed like a great chap to me (still does), even when a little under the weather. Straight talking bloke who seems to mean what he says.
I wasn't overjoyed when they dumped him for a model that operated a little better early in the morning but, when I was feeling generous, still gave them the occasional vote. Even when shiny Nick appeared on the scene, while I still pined to have jolly Charlie back, I kept flirting with them. Having been rather disillusioned with Labour (Iraq, an ongoing flirtation with consumerism and big business, a lack of ambition in really transforming the country), I thought a nice Lib Dem/Labour coalition could be just the ticket. So, the Lib Dems got my vote (luckily, I live in Stoke, so it made absolutely no difference to the local MP whatsoever!).
The day after the all-nighter of the election results, I had lunch with a few ex-colleagues and suggested that the only viable outcome was a Lib Dem/Labour coalition and that any flirtation with the Tories could only be political posturing. I don't think I'm ignorant of politics, but I was well and truly caught out.
Since then, I have been highly disillusioned and suffering from severe bouts of Tourettes, hence my absence since the election (I really have no excuse for my absence beforehand).
And so to the point...
Of all the scandalous policies being proposed at the moment in the never ending torrent of announcements we are currently being subject to, my absolute bugbear is tuition fees. I shall be brief...
Education is by far the most effective way of effective social change. Learning is entirely transformative and opens up opportunities to people that they could not have contemplated without it. I speak from experience.
My father used to be a painter and decorator, my mother a stay-at-home mum. I ended up being the first person in our family to attend university (under the grant system) and there is absolutely no doubt that my life is a million miles away from what it would otherwise have been. Given my background, a loan of £30,000 or more would have seemed an insurmountable mountain to climb, however soft and fluffy the repayment terms. I would have gone and got a job and probably pootled along on an average wage or so.
As it is, I do pretty well for myself and, not entirely coincidentally, both my parents now have post-graduate teaching qualifications and have rather transformed their own lives. And, just to be clear, we all pay for our degrees through the larger amounts of income tax that we now pay.
Education, from primary school through to university, is a right not a privilege. It is by far the best possible way of moving people from poverty to affluence. It is also the best way of building social cohesion and challenging preconceptions.
And tomorrow, when parliament votes to introduce tuition fees of up to £9,000 per year (don't forget to add subsistence onto this), everything I said above will be changed. However much later students have to pay back their massive debts, people from backgrounds like mine with be massively deterred from undertaking Higher Education because of the debts that will be hanging over them.
I expect this sort of thing from the Tories - it's exactly what they believe in. However, the Lib Dems have not moderately tweaked their policy. They have totally reneged on it to a degree that really is scandalous.
As a result, any faith I had in the ability of politics to effect the sort of changes our society so desperately needs has totally evaporated.
But don't worry about me, I've already got my degree.
(I imagine there will be more on this theme)
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Friday, 27 November 2009
Depression Time
Sadly, I'm going to break my latest promise. I am not going to review Spiceworld The Movie, since I fear that it may lose some of my select audience who do not follow me for my popular music tastes. I am, however, going to despair slightly at the state of British politics which is, I suspect, far more up their street!
As ever, I watched Question Time from last night largely in order to give myself a justifiable reason to shout at the television. I didn't realise just how great an excuse I would receive until I saw the starting credits with the lovely Melanie Phillips leering suggestively out of the screen at me. Melanie Phillips, I have to report, is not the one woman in the world to turn me back to straightness. She is, instead, an evil harridan whom I abhor (and it's nice to be able to use that word, I can tell you!).
She was, possibly, slightly less awful than usual but do bear in mind that these things are relative. Climate change is a massive conspiracy, the British public are deluding themselves by now feeling that we may have been a little mislead about the Iraq war etc. is really not up to her usual level of odiousness. My particular favourites are always drawn from her massive sense of moral superiority and are usually well exhibited on the Moral Maze, when she is so...well, awful...that I physically can't listen to it.
I really can't be bothered to actually address the specific arguments from the evening because, as a well-established liberal (apparently apart from my acceptance of Fleetwood Mac!), you already know where I'm coming from, but I do sometimes just despair about there being any chance of our political leaders actually dealing with the rather large problems ahead without basically screwing the poor and disadvantaged.
Fortunately, though, Marcus Brigstocke was also on and always entertains me. So that's alright then.
Maybe Spiceworld is worth a look after all!
As ever, I watched Question Time from last night largely in order to give myself a justifiable reason to shout at the television. I didn't realise just how great an excuse I would receive until I saw the starting credits with the lovely Melanie Phillips leering suggestively out of the screen at me. Melanie Phillips, I have to report, is not the one woman in the world to turn me back to straightness. She is, instead, an evil harridan whom I abhor (and it's nice to be able to use that word, I can tell you!).
She was, possibly, slightly less awful than usual but do bear in mind that these things are relative. Climate change is a massive conspiracy, the British public are deluding themselves by now feeling that we may have been a little mislead about the Iraq war etc. is really not up to her usual level of odiousness. My particular favourites are always drawn from her massive sense of moral superiority and are usually well exhibited on the Moral Maze, when she is so...well, awful...that I physically can't listen to it.
I really can't be bothered to actually address the specific arguments from the evening because, as a well-established liberal (apparently apart from my acceptance of Fleetwood Mac!), you already know where I'm coming from, but I do sometimes just despair about there being any chance of our political leaders actually dealing with the rather large problems ahead without basically screwing the poor and disadvantaged.
Fortunately, though, Marcus Brigstocke was also on and always entertains me. So that's alright then.
Maybe Spiceworld is worth a look after all!
Friday, 20 November 2009
Rumour Mill
Having had a tiring and busy few weeks, I've decided I can't face writing yet another serious post, so I'm going for a lighter tone here.
I find myself inexplicably obsessed with Fleetwood Mac at the moment, and particularly the album Rumours. This started a couple of weeks before the recent documentary about the band, so it's not because of that. But I find myself wondering why on earth they have (or maybe had) a reputation for being a safe and steady band that your Dad would like.
Say what you want, but Rumours is a cracking album, bristling with tension, anger and revenge all set to very good pop/rock tunes.
Particular favourites? Nothing revolutionary, I think...Dreams, Go Your Own Way, The Chain and Gold Dust Woman will do nicely, thank you. So if you've not dusted your copy off for a while (pretty much everyone seems to own a copy), dig it out and give it a go.
And, out of interest, their last studio album, Say You Will, is surprisingly good for a band of their age!
I find myself inexplicably obsessed with Fleetwood Mac at the moment, and particularly the album Rumours. This started a couple of weeks before the recent documentary about the band, so it's not because of that. But I find myself wondering why on earth they have (or maybe had) a reputation for being a safe and steady band that your Dad would like.
Say what you want, but Rumours is a cracking album, bristling with tension, anger and revenge all set to very good pop/rock tunes.
Particular favourites? Nothing revolutionary, I think...Dreams, Go Your Own Way, The Chain and Gold Dust Woman will do nicely, thank you. So if you've not dusted your copy off for a while (pretty much everyone seems to own a copy), dig it out and give it a go.
And, out of interest, their last studio album, Say You Will, is surprisingly good for a band of their age!
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Inevitable 'BNP on Question Time' post.
Well, the build up to Nick Griffin's forthcoming appearance on Question Time is properly under way now. I was, as you can imagine, especially please to see Blurton (in Stoke-on-Trent, for those not of a local disposition!) featured as a great example of the 'white working class' who are being drawn to vote for the BNP.
Actually, unpleasant as it was, the main piece was pretty accurate, although the figures presented clearly show that 'working class' is not really the correct phrase. It painted a picture of a community excluded from traditional employment opportunities, living on a disastrously low average income and quite understandably resentful about the situation in which they find themselves.
And, helpfully, Barbara Follet (Labour MP and Minister for Culture, Creative Industry and Tourism) was on hand to discuss the issue in detail. And, helpfully, she continues to almost entirely miss the point, an approach not entirely unusual to the main parties.
This is not a discussion about race. People who are comfortably off and happy with their lot rarely get overly concerned about what the brown people down the road are up to. There may well be some low-level residual racism in their conversation, (and as a dyed-in-the-wool wishy-washy liberal I abhor this as much as the next person), but offensive as this is, it certainly never rises to voting for neo-Nazis.
All the major parties have entirely failed to tackle the massive clusters of unemployment and deprivation that blight many of our previously industrial cities. Although decline had been in the system for many years, the marvellous contribution of Margaret Thatcher's policies put the nail in the coffin of the sort of skilled yet somewhat unpleasant industries that made Stoke and many other cities economically viable. The subsequent failure of both Tory and Labour governments (and local authorities) to develop and deliver a clear vision and strategy for meaningful economic redevelopment that focusses on exactly the individuals no longer employed in engineering/manufacturing etc. has left large proportions of the population in these areas with literally no hope.
These people look around and see anyone different from them as being favoured and are understandable resentful. Their analysis of the situation is incorrect, but the mistakes are understandable given their viewpoint.
Which brings us to Question Time. Many principled politicians (see Peter Haine) believe that the BNP should not be given a flagship public platform.
Absolute nonsense, I think. It's about time that these thugs and idiots were properly challenged on their policies by the public and serious politicians. Exposure to proper debate is the way that the stupidity and blatant racism of their argument will be placed on view for all to see, and I for one am happy that Jack Straw (of whom I'm no great fan) has had the guts to go on and fight the good fight. I very much hope that the audience and the panellists give the delightful Mr Griffin hell.
But more than this, politicians have got to understand that minor tinkering in shattered communities is not nearly enough. We need intervention on a massive scale if we are to make the sort of change to individual peoples' lives that we need to restore some sense to the political process. The entirely reasonable concerns of these forgotten communities need to be addressed, and relying on a Sure Start Centre and occasional employment programmes is simply not going to do it.
Actually, unpleasant as it was, the main piece was pretty accurate, although the figures presented clearly show that 'working class' is not really the correct phrase. It painted a picture of a community excluded from traditional employment opportunities, living on a disastrously low average income and quite understandably resentful about the situation in which they find themselves.
And, helpfully, Barbara Follet (Labour MP and Minister for Culture, Creative Industry and Tourism) was on hand to discuss the issue in detail. And, helpfully, she continues to almost entirely miss the point, an approach not entirely unusual to the main parties.
This is not a discussion about race. People who are comfortably off and happy with their lot rarely get overly concerned about what the brown people down the road are up to. There may well be some low-level residual racism in their conversation, (and as a dyed-in-the-wool wishy-washy liberal I abhor this as much as the next person), but offensive as this is, it certainly never rises to voting for neo-Nazis.
All the major parties have entirely failed to tackle the massive clusters of unemployment and deprivation that blight many of our previously industrial cities. Although decline had been in the system for many years, the marvellous contribution of Margaret Thatcher's policies put the nail in the coffin of the sort of skilled yet somewhat unpleasant industries that made Stoke and many other cities economically viable. The subsequent failure of both Tory and Labour governments (and local authorities) to develop and deliver a clear vision and strategy for meaningful economic redevelopment that focusses on exactly the individuals no longer employed in engineering/manufacturing etc. has left large proportions of the population in these areas with literally no hope.
These people look around and see anyone different from them as being favoured and are understandable resentful. Their analysis of the situation is incorrect, but the mistakes are understandable given their viewpoint.
Which brings us to Question Time. Many principled politicians (see Peter Haine) believe that the BNP should not be given a flagship public platform.
Absolute nonsense, I think. It's about time that these thugs and idiots were properly challenged on their policies by the public and serious politicians. Exposure to proper debate is the way that the stupidity and blatant racism of their argument will be placed on view for all to see, and I for one am happy that Jack Straw (of whom I'm no great fan) has had the guts to go on and fight the good fight. I very much hope that the audience and the panellists give the delightful Mr Griffin hell.
But more than this, politicians have got to understand that minor tinkering in shattered communities is not nearly enough. We need intervention on a massive scale if we are to make the sort of change to individual peoples' lives that we need to restore some sense to the political process. The entirely reasonable concerns of these forgotten communities need to be addressed, and relying on a Sure Start Centre and occasional employment programmes is simply not going to do it.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
New book ahoy...
Just a quickie this evening.
I've just started reading what is looking like one of my books of the year, despite it being a slightly lazy compilation of newspaper columns marginally re-edited into some sort of coherent structure.
'The Audacity of Hype' by Armando Iannucci appears to be a highly entertaining (and moderately depressing, but only if you think about it) compilation that has already had me laughing out loud much more than I should if I want to keep the respect of my friends and observers!
For those of a cynical bent, take a shufty. For those that aren't, I imagine X-Factor/Dancing on Ice/Ready Steady Cook and many others are only a remote control button away.
I've just started reading what is looking like one of my books of the year, despite it being a slightly lazy compilation of newspaper columns marginally re-edited into some sort of coherent structure.
'The Audacity of Hype' by Armando Iannucci appears to be a highly entertaining (and moderately depressing, but only if you think about it) compilation that has already had me laughing out loud much more than I should if I want to keep the respect of my friends and observers!
For those of a cynical bent, take a shufty. For those that aren't, I imagine X-Factor/Dancing on Ice/Ready Steady Cook and many others are only a remote control button away.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Death, Taxes and Public Spending Cuts
I popped to Barcelona last week, and had a lovely time thank you very much. There will, I suspect, be a blog appearing shortly covering my musings on the differences I found between here and there (probably a sort of 'grass is greener' type of thing).
However, more pressing on my mind is the fervour I find upon my return in the news media. It appears that all the political parties have reached a consensus on how to fix our financial woes which will help make it easier for us to select a box for our cross at the forthcoming election. The race is now on to cut public spending as savagely and drastically as possible all in the name of fiscal prudence (and I thought prudence was faithful to Gordon).
I understand that in supporting the needs of shareholders of financial institutions and companies, we rightly spent many a billion (and we've become American for the purposes of such calculations now) to keep things moving a little. I note that as the country has become massively indebted, most of the large banks are happy plodding on making profits, carrying on as they were and moaning about the paltry controls on their practices currently being discussed by governments around the world.
In the meantime, the last week has brought proposals to cut back in education and health, although these cuts are apparently only of spending that has absolutely no impact on the quality of services (handy, that!). It's early days, but expect a rash of other proposed cuts from each party to show how tough they are prepared to be on cutting the deficit - certainly tougher than the other parties.
Now I'm not dim, I understand that we are in a pretty large financial hole at the moment. However, I do question the consensus that appears to have formed that we basically need to get the economy back to where it was a couple of years ago and carry on as normal. I'm not sure that a massive reliance on financial services, an ever reducing focus on manufacturing and the philosophy that low taxation and hence public spending is the way forwards. The increases in public spending seen over the last ten or so years have still not brought us up to the levels seen in some European countries and there still exists a massive disparity in the services available to those using state services and those paying for private. Perhaps a little less focus on "year on year growth" and a little more on improving our society as a whole would pay dividends. It may be worth a try.
So, being the lefty type that I am, I propose that through fair means or foul, we recoup some of our deficit from the banks that we have saved (directly and indirectly). Nationalisation would have been best, but we appear to have missed that particular boat. Then focus rather more on the benefits of well-funded and well-run public services. Education, health, social care and all the rest are not charity but have a host of benefits to our society as a whole (tangible and less so) which mean that the poor, the rich and those in between feel more secure and happy. I think we exclude a large group of people from employment (and so from broader society) when we remove a whole level of job role requiring low levels of skills. I think it's better to have well maintained parks, clean streets and a person rather than a machine serving me at my local supermarket than have a chunk of our population thinking that Jeremy Kyle and Murder She Wrote are a productive way of spending the day.
I think that's it for this particular rant...I suspect another will follow shortly! :)
However, more pressing on my mind is the fervour I find upon my return in the news media. It appears that all the political parties have reached a consensus on how to fix our financial woes which will help make it easier for us to select a box for our cross at the forthcoming election. The race is now on to cut public spending as savagely and drastically as possible all in the name of fiscal prudence (and I thought prudence was faithful to Gordon).
I understand that in supporting the needs of shareholders of financial institutions and companies, we rightly spent many a billion (and we've become American for the purposes of such calculations now) to keep things moving a little. I note that as the country has become massively indebted, most of the large banks are happy plodding on making profits, carrying on as they were and moaning about the paltry controls on their practices currently being discussed by governments around the world.
In the meantime, the last week has brought proposals to cut back in education and health, although these cuts are apparently only of spending that has absolutely no impact on the quality of services (handy, that!). It's early days, but expect a rash of other proposed cuts from each party to show how tough they are prepared to be on cutting the deficit - certainly tougher than the other parties.
Now I'm not dim, I understand that we are in a pretty large financial hole at the moment. However, I do question the consensus that appears to have formed that we basically need to get the economy back to where it was a couple of years ago and carry on as normal. I'm not sure that a massive reliance on financial services, an ever reducing focus on manufacturing and the philosophy that low taxation and hence public spending is the way forwards. The increases in public spending seen over the last ten or so years have still not brought us up to the levels seen in some European countries and there still exists a massive disparity in the services available to those using state services and those paying for private. Perhaps a little less focus on "year on year growth" and a little more on improving our society as a whole would pay dividends. It may be worth a try.
So, being the lefty type that I am, I propose that through fair means or foul, we recoup some of our deficit from the banks that we have saved (directly and indirectly). Nationalisation would have been best, but we appear to have missed that particular boat. Then focus rather more on the benefits of well-funded and well-run public services. Education, health, social care and all the rest are not charity but have a host of benefits to our society as a whole (tangible and less so) which mean that the poor, the rich and those in between feel more secure and happy. I think we exclude a large group of people from employment (and so from broader society) when we remove a whole level of job role requiring low levels of skills. I think it's better to have well maintained parks, clean streets and a person rather than a machine serving me at my local supermarket than have a chunk of our population thinking that Jeremy Kyle and Murder She Wrote are a productive way of spending the day.
I think that's it for this particular rant...I suspect another will follow shortly! :)
Friday, 7 August 2009
Freeing up a choking city
Lovely Stoke is choking, as are many other cities.
All is relatively calm at the moment because the schools are off and parents appear to have suddenly realised that their kids are capable of walking and playing in the great outdoors. However, come September, this revelation will be forgotten and the roads will be chock-a-block again.
Those who live in any decently-sized city (and who drive, of course) will know the feeling of sitting in a traffic jam as part of a journey that, it turns out, you could quite easily have walked more quickly. I have often said (and it is true) that there are times when it is quicker for me to take a train from Stoke to Birmingham than it is to get from home to the station.
Obviously, such a massive waste of time is personally annoying. But bear in mind that it's not just you in that traffic jam. There are, every day, many thousands of people crawling along in traffic jams all around the city. Many of them are trying to get to or from work in their own time and many are in-between appointments whilst being employed. All in all, this amounts to a massive loss in personal and productive time which can be equated to a financial loss to companies (and individuals) across the city. Clearly, then, the productivity of our businesses and the free time of our residents would be greatly increased if we could address this problem.
The answer is obvious, of course - public transport.
However, I have written here before about my experiences of the existing public transport infrastructure. Buses are far too expensive and the service is inconsistent and unreliable. The trains are pretty good when they run, but getting to and from the station is a nightmare unless you drive, which rather defeats the point. I am moderately close to two smaller stations, but for each I need to drive and the service from at least one of them is largely non-existent.
Ironically, we once had a great local rail network around the city (and as far as Newcastle) known as the 'Loop Line'. The remnants remain visible for all to see in the form of 'green ways' and cycle paths. These show the routes of the old local rail network that connected most parts of the city and provided connections between these and the major stations to take us far and wide. Had this still been in place, a five minute stroll to Tunstall Station would have taken me anywhere I wanted to go locally, or to Stoke Station to take me further afield.
One way or another, we need to reinstall a truly integrated public transport system to the area that can enable us to genuinely say to the public at large that they don't need to use their cars. This could be a light railway system or a tram system. I know one person who thinks that a monorail could be just the ticket. I also think that buses are a key element too, although whether they could be viably run in the private sector, I'm unsure.
The key to this is to identify transport hubs and to put in place coordinated linkages to, from and between them. At the moment, obvious hubs are Hanley town centre, Newcastle town centre and Stoke Station. There may also need to be additional hubs and the North and South ends of the city. Then, all the transport schemes are designed to link outlying areas to hubs, and to link hubs together. As I say, a combination of buses and trams/trains could be used. The largest volumes of passengers will be between hubs, so I suggest that rail networks would be necessary here, but buses would be the most cost effective way of connecting some outlying areas to hubs.
With an infrastructure in place, we then need to encourage the public to use the system. Cost must be cheap (very cheap!) and alternatives must be expensive. This may mean introducing congestion charging across the city.
The benefits of such a system would, I believe, be many-fold. Clearly, there would be a financial benefit to businesses for time saved. There would also be a significant improvement in the quality of life of many of our residents. Our city's emmisions of carbon (and many other nasty exhaust fumes) would also drop radically. Such a scheme would also contribute to an increased confidence for the city, and would probably encourage local investment.
I'm not sure how easy it is to put a price tag on some of these benefits, hence my concern about the use of private companies. Also, to be effective, an integrated system needs to be centrally directed and would mean running buses, trains and trams on routes that may not be commercially viable purely in terms of passenger fayres. Do we want, in these circumstances, to pay a private company to provide a set service so that some of that money can be passed onto shareholders?
Either way, I think that the future for large cities is integrated public transport. Many cities are going that way and maybe we should too.
All is relatively calm at the moment because the schools are off and parents appear to have suddenly realised that their kids are capable of walking and playing in the great outdoors. However, come September, this revelation will be forgotten and the roads will be chock-a-block again.
Those who live in any decently-sized city (and who drive, of course) will know the feeling of sitting in a traffic jam as part of a journey that, it turns out, you could quite easily have walked more quickly. I have often said (and it is true) that there are times when it is quicker for me to take a train from Stoke to Birmingham than it is to get from home to the station.
Obviously, such a massive waste of time is personally annoying. But bear in mind that it's not just you in that traffic jam. There are, every day, many thousands of people crawling along in traffic jams all around the city. Many of them are trying to get to or from work in their own time and many are in-between appointments whilst being employed. All in all, this amounts to a massive loss in personal and productive time which can be equated to a financial loss to companies (and individuals) across the city. Clearly, then, the productivity of our businesses and the free time of our residents would be greatly increased if we could address this problem.
The answer is obvious, of course - public transport.
However, I have written here before about my experiences of the existing public transport infrastructure. Buses are far too expensive and the service is inconsistent and unreliable. The trains are pretty good when they run, but getting to and from the station is a nightmare unless you drive, which rather defeats the point. I am moderately close to two smaller stations, but for each I need to drive and the service from at least one of them is largely non-existent.
Ironically, we once had a great local rail network around the city (and as far as Newcastle) known as the 'Loop Line'. The remnants remain visible for all to see in the form of 'green ways' and cycle paths. These show the routes of the old local rail network that connected most parts of the city and provided connections between these and the major stations to take us far and wide. Had this still been in place, a five minute stroll to Tunstall Station would have taken me anywhere I wanted to go locally, or to Stoke Station to take me further afield.
One way or another, we need to reinstall a truly integrated public transport system to the area that can enable us to genuinely say to the public at large that they don't need to use their cars. This could be a light railway system or a tram system. I know one person who thinks that a monorail could be just the ticket. I also think that buses are a key element too, although whether they could be viably run in the private sector, I'm unsure.
The key to this is to identify transport hubs and to put in place coordinated linkages to, from and between them. At the moment, obvious hubs are Hanley town centre, Newcastle town centre and Stoke Station. There may also need to be additional hubs and the North and South ends of the city. Then, all the transport schemes are designed to link outlying areas to hubs, and to link hubs together. As I say, a combination of buses and trams/trains could be used. The largest volumes of passengers will be between hubs, so I suggest that rail networks would be necessary here, but buses would be the most cost effective way of connecting some outlying areas to hubs.
With an infrastructure in place, we then need to encourage the public to use the system. Cost must be cheap (very cheap!) and alternatives must be expensive. This may mean introducing congestion charging across the city.
The benefits of such a system would, I believe, be many-fold. Clearly, there would be a financial benefit to businesses for time saved. There would also be a significant improvement in the quality of life of many of our residents. Our city's emmisions of carbon (and many other nasty exhaust fumes) would also drop radically. Such a scheme would also contribute to an increased confidence for the city, and would probably encourage local investment.
I'm not sure how easy it is to put a price tag on some of these benefits, hence my concern about the use of private companies. Also, to be effective, an integrated system needs to be centrally directed and would mean running buses, trains and trams on routes that may not be commercially viable purely in terms of passenger fayres. Do we want, in these circumstances, to pay a private company to provide a set service so that some of that money can be passed onto shareholders?
Either way, I think that the future for large cities is integrated public transport. Many cities are going that way and maybe we should too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)