Boris Johnson's u-turn on axing western c-charge zone

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

It's all a bit 'big state' for me, too invasive into people's lives - ooh, I must ring up and pay, or I'll get fined for driving outside my own house. The apparatus for enforcement, the criminalisation of more middle class people - just seems a bit much.

The whole concept of the road network is Big State, roads are built by, paid for and maintained by the public purse. There is never any question of closing roads that are not economically viable. How else could it be? If roads were private, you would have to pay a private company to drive anywhere - and in that situation you could not vote the f****rs out if you didn't like the service! If they decided to close all the roads to your village, there would be nothing you could do.

Should all public transport be free, 100% subsidised by the taxpayer then? I think you are letting ideology get in the way of effective policy.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The whole concept of the road network is Big State, roads are built by, paid for and maintained by the public purse. There is never any question of closing roads that are not economically viable. How else could it be? If roads were private, you would have to pay a private company to drive anywhere - and in that situation you could not vote the f****rs out if you didn't like the service! If they decided to close all the roads to your village, there would be nothing you could do.

Should all public transport be free, 100% subsidised by the taxpayer then? I think you are letting ideology get in the way of effective policy.

Well, of course we all need roads. (Someone should tell Ron Paul that!) We all need the state - but how big should that state be? How interventionist should they be?

How democratic should the state be? If residents don't want a new Tesco, a new bypass, a congestion charge - should dogmatic councillors impose these things on them, purportedly for their own good?

The fact that is feels 'big state' and just feels wrong is not the crux of my argument - that's just me gesturing vague feelings on a forum. The parking analogy is essentially the argument. Why not just ask residents what they want?

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

The fact that is feels 'big state' and just feels wrong is not the crux of my argument - that's just me gesturing vague feelings on a forum. The parking analogy is essentially the argument. Why not just ask residents what they want?

Democracy is a difficult term to define, parts of what makes it function are not institutional but are things such as trust, integrity and the suchlike. No actual democracy meets all the conditions that are typically prescribed to it (for example the UK has an appointed upper legislature, the USA has Head of State and Chief Executive (i.e. PM) rolled into one).

What democracy is not is just going for whatever is supported by the majority.

The trouble with asking people what they want is that what people want is either impossible or contradictory with their other wants. Most people want low taxes and high services, to save the planet and fly abroad two times a year. I could go on.

purch

Why not just ask residents what they want?

This isn't Switzerland !!!

Sir_Humphrey

purch wrote: »

This isn't Switzerland !!!

You joke, but the State of California has propositions made directly by voters. Just have a look at the budget calamity it has caused there (much worse than the UK).

The sad fact of life is that most people do not have the time to work out in detail policy and all the effects of a policy. A lot of people just go along with whatever nonsense they read in the newspapers. That is why we elect representatives to forward their interests and civil servants to make their crazy policies work. The system needs to be made better, but there are few votes in constitutional/electoral reform as most people do not understand how the system works.

To continue on this theme would involve me discussing Aristotle, and I don't plan to bore people any further.

Mr_Mumble

Boris is as much of an invertebrate flip-flopper as Cameron - and I am a fan of Boris' prose. If the Tories get back into power (and with upcoming arguments over Lisbon if Ireland votes yes I still fancy a hung parliament) then the fiscal worries for Britain will continue. Cameron will not face down the public sector unions like Thatcher did the coal miners and the deficits will continue to be unsustainable.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Most people want low taxes and high services

This isn't mutually exclusive, the services need not be provided by the state - the government owns a travel guide company! Huge swathes of the social security system could be provided by private insurance and the so-called front-line services are hugely bloated, do we really need 250,000 more teaching assistants than in 1997 or 135,000 more nurses than the French?

to save the planet and fly abroad two times a year. I could go on.

With 11 years of colder global temperatures the planet only needs saving in the minds of tax-and-spend politicians looking for their next ruse to fleece the taxpayer. If politicians care so much about the environment then green taxes should be revenue neutral with corresponding reductions in income taxes.

Good to have you back Humph

JayScottGreenspan

Indeed, Sir Humphrey, government can't always just do what the public want - bring back the death penalty, cancel income tax - we'd end up in a right pickle.

But this is a local issue. It has a significant effect on the lives of residents and has almost nil effect on everyone else. Surely local government is often very much about doing what the residents want.

[Jim Hacker mode]I thought that was the whole point of local government.[/Jim Hacker mode]

Sir_Humphrey

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

This isn't mutually exclusive, the services need not be provided by the state - the government owns a travel guide company! Huge swathes of the social security system could be provided by private insurance and the so-called front-line services are hugely bloated, do we really need 250,000 more teaching assistants than in 1997 or 135,000 more nurses than the French?

This doesn't square the circle - if you pay private insurance, you still pay but with higher admin costs. Just look at the USA.

Teaching assistants allow teachers more time in the classroom and less time stood by the photocopier - surely this is a sensible use of resources as it increases teacher productivity.

Any organisation, private or public could be more efficient. However, efficiency often comes at the use of effectiveness. For example, an efficient A&E department would only have enough staff for the average day - not very good if one day there is a train crash nearby.

But surely local government is very much about doing what the residents want.

Problems such as the tyranny of the majority still apply. And you will end up with postcode lottery complaints "well, the next council provides this for free".

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Car drivers are such a bunch of tiresome whiners; want to drive as fast as they like, wherever they like, park where they like, and on petrol that is free. Oh, and the speed limits and other items of the Highway Code don't apply to them personally, because they know how to handle their car at speed- it's the other drivers who are all morons.

Driving in big cities is antisocial and totally unnecessary (exceptions being for business use and genuine health reasons). I support anything that forces people off the roads and onto the public transport they seem to think they are too good for.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Problems such as the tyranny of the majority still apply. And you will end up with postcode lottery complaints "well, the next council provide this for free".

Local government is indeed by no means perfect. That's why a majority of Londoners who do not live in K&C have gleefully inflicted the c-charge on the minority who do live in K&C.

I think this whole debate could do with a little more empathy. In the grand scheme of things I don't really care that much about making the residents of Kensington and Chelsea's lives a little bit worse. But where there is insufficient benefit to others to offset this downside, I would have enough empathy to oppose the policy.

There is the cash it raises, of course, mostly from the rich. But if all you want is to take more money from residents of Kensigton and Chelsea, there are more direct and efficient ways of doing it. Ways that don't simultaneously add an extra layer of bureaucracy to their lives.

For me the policy was a piece of class warfare. I know Ken was all for that, but I find that a distasteful starting point for any policy. I'm much more of a utilitarian, and as such I would reject Pareto inefficient policies.