Election Day Thread

sg_mike

OK, I'll bite on this. Most people who commute from Muswell Hill / Crouch End to central London have a z12 travelcard because the buses are included in the cost. If they cycle instead, then they still have to buy a z12 travelcard but also pay 50p/day to park their bike at FP. So TfL actually get more money from them (stupid fare system really). TfL would be better off including the cycle parking charge in the cost of a travelcard to get more people to use the cycle park - the revenue they get from cycle users is only a few thousand pounds a year.

Do you actually get the savings from not having to run the equivalent of an extra bus? That depends on whether government's a bit tight on cash at the moment and wants to save money ...

nick_m

I don't get hit by buses and skip lorries, I get hit by motorbikes riding down the wrong side of the road. If fewer people take the bus, it takes less fuel to run the bus. Not sure how much it saves in fuel per person though - quite a lot going up FPR judging by the roar of a full bus going up there.

dion

nick_m - your statement taken to its logical conclusion means that an empty bus is the most efficient bus. Perhaps Andy can add some more marginal vs average costing analysis please?

andy

Absolutely. A bus will become more efficient the emptier it is. It gets even more efficient if it doesn't stop at the bus stops, reducing emissions and costs due to unnecessary idling time. It is most efficient if parked in a car park, with no staff attending it.

nick_m

Yes Dion. That's the conclusion I'm looking for; empty (and parked) buses and everyone cycling. Costs and emissions saved. Perfect.

rainbow_carnage

I'd love to cycle -- hell, I'd even pay 50p a day to lock up my bike -- but London just doesn't have the roads for it.

A friend of mine cycles everywhere. She's always trying to convince me to get a bike. Last year, she was knocked off her bike twice, including once by an unmarked police car. Both times, the bike was totaled. The year before, it was nicked from her back garden.

She has to go to physiotherapy on a regular basis. The police car screwed up her back, and she's often in pain. Still, she cycles.

I don't want to get knocked off my bike. I don't want to have to go to physiotherapy. I don't want to have to pay for insurance in case the bike is stolen. So I take the bus.

Lots of my friends say they'd cycle (at least in the summer months), if only there were bicycle paths. Or if the drivers were slightly less mental. But they aren't, so we all take public transport, and the cycle park stays empty.

It would've made more sense to improve the cycling infrastructure first, increase the number of cyclists, then build a parking facility.

ShaunG

@RC very sorry to hear about your friend. It is awful to hear about cyclists having accidents (and I've read several press stories of deaths over the last year or so). Everyone makes their own judgement of risk but these dangers wouldn't stop me cycling. I don't have a barrage of stats but having cycled from one end of London to the other every day for 13 years I think that as long as you take a cautious approach (don't go through red lights, don't ever get near to buses/ lorries, etc) the risks are not huge. I play football as well and - at my age - I reckon that's the one more likely to leave me needing physiotherapy. Given london's street pattern, I find most (though not all) cycle paths make cycling more rather than less dangerous.

Mirandola

Here's my anecdotal. I've cycled in London for four years and nothing's ever happened to me. And I'm not a careful cyclist. I try, but I'm absent minded, occasionally not quite sober and take risks if I'm running late.

Non-anecdotally, all the research I've seen on the health impact of cycling shows that the benefits (cardiovascular health, weight maintenance, better mental health etc...) vastly outweigh the accident risk.

Take this BMJ article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116028/ which says:

'Cycling or walking can bring major health benefits—half an hour a day can halve the risk of developing heart disease. This is equivalent to the effect of not smoking and is valid for most of the population, who do very little physical activity. Even if spread over two or three shorter episodes, this amount of activity can also halve the risk of developing diabetes, reduce blood pressure (equivalent to the effect of taking antihypertensive drugs), and improve functional capacity.
[...]
The risk of accidents is an important deterrent to cycling. However, life table analyses of the risk of accidents and the cardiovascular benefits of cycling for people living in the United Kingdom showed a net benefit of several fold for this exercise. '

twinspark

@ Arkady and all Liberals.[ no such thing as LibDems -last time I checked all major parties in UK were democratic so it's a title that might as well be Liberal Humans, just tosh]

@ Andy and all Lib Cons. [ Con being the operative element]

First of all 'a pox on both your houses', secondly 'Mandate my ass'
From your comments it seems as though you live in a UK as depicted in Vicar of Dibley or other Richard Curtis dross. [ methinks that ramblings from West of our Boro' would surely differ with those from the East] I really do think it's time that SG reclaimed the Heath don't you? - I mean they're virtually connected by the Parkland Walk - or better still just enlarge Hampstead boundaries to take in CE and SG, Dave & Nick can do that, they can do anything omce given the idea.

I've been working abroad since 11 May and return tomorrow but have avoided much of the revolting spectacle of a Head Boy and his Fag grinning inanely in front of No.10 having just contorted every 'long held sincere principle' and party tradition just to get the photo op. outside the big black door. Of course you will say they're reformers dragging their parties into the future and compromise for their own good. I have noticed the Lib. u-turn on nuclear power and really can't wait for the LIb-Con crackdown on all those disabled work-dodgers especially the foreign ones. In the last 10 days or so I've discussed our new Sixth Form Council [not a Govt. -certainly not mine ] with French, German,Japanese,American, Spanish, Italian Australian,Portugese and Spanish most of whom were laughing behind their hands at Cameron & Clegg who are seen as a joke especially in Europe and US. We have Ant & Dec in charge. This compares miserably with my experience of being in the US the night Obama won. [ what was The Sun thinking of with that front cover btw]

It will end in tears long before the five year prescribed date and there will be no Liberal party to speak of after - well they will all probably cross the floor at some point anyway. Surely the Prince of Fairness and must have had an irony by- pass after his vote decreased yet leverage increased to elevate him to a Baron of Both Sides -especially as his habit of claiming maximum MP expenses avoided scrutiny in the hustings - it was GB that pointed that out to him privately after the 'scandal' broke and he saw fit to lecture all.
So let's settle in for 5 years of hubris and headlines with no article, claiming all of the glory whilst avoiding shame and endless pluralist debate - like being in a restaurant with a 35 page menu and almost everything's off but they don't tell you until you ask for it. Sorry I haven't been specific enough about your policies but then neither are your leaders - perhaps we're supposed to send ideas on a post card?

Careful what you wish for! [ 27% VAT! - 12% mortgages by 2012 and Gold Medals all round] As for Lynne Featherstone I just have no idea where this woman lives - she's a total idiot and shouldn't be in any office at all, saw her on TV and was embarassed as the area deserves much better and much less flim flam -that last bit isn't hard.

The really serious bit is they've talked their way into a job they have no idea how to do - nor anyone around them Hague,Osborne, May, Cable are all useless witterers. We how have our George W. Bush, albeit in two mandate fiddlers and worse - let's not misunderestimate them.

ADGS

Shaun G: sadly, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents">this report</a> suggests that cyclists jumping red lights might actually save their lives.

ADGS

Twinspark: what a surprise not to find you optimistic about the coalition. Your views on them notwithstanding, I am still disappointed by the 'not a Govt - certainly not mine' line. Part of living in a mature democracy is accepting that, whatever your views, sometimes there will be a government which does not represent them. Lose that, and you end up with at best the Fox News/teabagger debacle ongoing in the US, and at worst...well, it's not quite worst, but I've got a friend in Thailand at the moment, and that's not pretty.

As for the residents of those various other countries not taking our government seriously - I couldn't even tell you who half of their leaders *are*. And three of them are two whiskers away from needing a Greece-style bailout so if I want their opinions, I'll make them dance for pennies while expressing them.

dorothy

I don't normally have Tory thoughts but does anyone else work in the public sector and is actually quite pleased at the prospect of savage cuts in Communities and Local Government budget. I'm surrounded by waste, dead wood and a system paralysed by constant restructuring, wouldn't be sorry to see a lot of it go.

graeme

..

Alex

The [economics of empty buses](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b291a87c-0f9c-11df-b10f-00144feabdc0.html) are non-trivial, as it depends on the sensitivity of bus schedules to passenger demand. I would have thought that London bus schedules are highly responsive to passenger demand at peak times. _An admittedly unscientific poll of environmentalists at dinner parties suggests to me that they think “the plane is making the journey anyway” excuse is unacceptable but “the bus is making the journey anyway” excuse is spot on – and that they have no coherent justification for the distinction._

andy

Aha Tim Harford says: *"We must distinguish between average cost, marginal cost, and average marginal cost."* This is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier. It's hard to work out the impact of individual behaviours on systems that are fundamentally set up as networks. trufact - Me and Tim had the same economics tutor, only I stopped doing it as soon as I could and he did a masters.

ADGS

I believe the coalition agreement includes reform of aviation taxes, precisely to make it less economically attractive for airlines to fly near-empty 'planes.

twinspark

The only thing you can bank on from this coalition is if a representative says one thing in the house or a part of the country then another representative will be saying the opposite somewhere else. It also seems you need to be a millionaire to be in the cabinet, that's a reassuring side-effect! A nice growing list of principles knocked into the long grass, presumably after years and years of sanctimonious bellyaching it turns out they weren't needed after all. Pluralism is of course a great incubator for duplicity especially with two 'leaders' so patently believing they're playing a blinder Machiavellian hand. If it survives beyond a year it will be de facto a Tory govt. as the Lib. idea will have been subsumed, and referenda been and gone and all their cards in Whitehall will have been played - that Nick he's a genius, so much energy, so many ideas and the next leader of the Conservatives. Joe Grimond would be so proud.

ADGS

Even if it does end up as a de facto Tory government, that won't be much of a change after Blair and Brown.

nick_m

It's a shame that David Laws had to hide behind £40k of rent to conceal his sexuality. My main concern is that he felt he couldn't be open about it in Britain today; is it because it would have been detrimental to his life as an MP or too much intrusiveness of the press or just the want of a quiet life? Whatever it was, it clearly would have been better if he'd been honest from the start. It's a bit naive to think you can hide it forever when you're in public life and especially when you do so at the expense of the taxpayer.

ADGS

The homophobia excuse was clearly bollocks in Law's case. Even in the Sun, there's a poll where 13% of people are actively in favour of gay Cabinet ministers against only 5% who dislike the idea - and 76%, very sensibly, couldn't care less.

twinspark

So now we know what pluralism means - believe one thing but do something else - and fair means that a cabinet of over 20 millionaires applying top down management to those at the bottom of the ladder.

'..Go George go! - give those disabled and poor people hell and that public sector just gets in the way who needs it..'

Well done for voting in this bunch of amateur gamblers - who think they've pulled off a coup on the school Tuck Shop . [although you probably thought you voted for something else ] Despite the softer language we've been here before - not surprising that this lot should have no original thought just better presentation skills.
So where does these leave the Liberals?

btw. in contract discussion and drafting the use of the word fair is avoided or just disallowed lest it triggers an expensive debate on the meaning of a fair contract. Lawyers can't agree on what it means.
So did your vote for fairness deliver what you thought or did Dave, Nick and George have a different interpretation up their expensively-tailored sleeves? [ Clegg is even worse than I thought - Leon Brittan is beaming I expect]

Arkady

ask Nick: "Yesterday I wrote to you about why we have to take difficult decisions to tackle the deficit and lay the foundations of a fairer society. These are not decisions that any government wants to take but we have no choice except to clear up the financial mess that Labour left us. Today’s Budget takes these difficult decisions in an honest and fair way and with the clear stamp of Liberal Democrat values running through it. In the past, efforts to tackle a big deficit have always hit the poorest the most. The coalition has ensured that – for the first time – this will not happen. The richest will pay the most, while pensioners and children will be protected. Look through the Budget and you will see key policies we campaigned for being put into effect. The £1,000 increase in the Income Tax allowance will mean that 880,000 low paid workers will be freed from Income Tax altogether. This is the first step towards delivering our manifesto commitment to ensure no-one pays tax on the first £10,000 they earn. The Budget puts in place our promise of a new tax on banks, ensuring that they help to pay to clear up the mess left by the financial crisis. Top earners will pay a full 10% more in Capital Gains Tax than under Labour, with no loopholes or tapers or get-out clauses. That change helps ensure those with the broadest shoulders take the greatest strain. We will guarantee that pensioners get a fair deal, putting into effect the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment for a “triple lock”, so state pensions rise every year in line with earnings, inflation, or by 2.5%, whichever is the highest. Never again will pensioners be allowed to fall behind. The Coalition Government will not let regions, towns or cities that depend heavily on the public sector be forgotten. That’s why this Budget establishes a regional growth fund to ensure those parts of the country get meaningful support to help create jobs and opportunities for all. Tackling Child Poverty remains at the heart of the government’s approach. So while we have decided to cut child tax credits for those who can most afford it, we have increased tax credits for the poorest families and put up to £ 2 billion into child tax credits to help ensure children of all backgrounds get a fair start in life. These measures will ensure that the burden of deficit reduction is shared fairly across society. This Government is being honest with people about the road ahead. Together, we can make it through these difficult times and restore health to our economy and to the public finances. These difficult choices are the foundation stones for the fairer Britain we will build over the next five years. Best wishes, Nick Clegg"

Arkady

Twinspark, I'm sure you'd rather keep your head in the sand than recognise that the deficit has to be reduced. Rather than cut anything voluntarily, better to wait until we're bankrupt and forced to do it in the IMFs terms? You seem to have no alternative to offer. A

miss annie

What do think you think your bunch would have done? Continued splashing the cash (that we don't have) thus securing the nations downfall?

miss annie

Oh Arkady you beat me to it, I must have been posting at the same time as you! Although not as eloquently.

Ali

Oh yeh See this from Liam Byrne • Families earning as little as £15,000 a year will lose from changes to the tax credit system. A family on £15,000 would be entitled to £4,290, instead of £4,335, as a result of the measures announced today. (See page 64 of the red book for the full table.) • By 2012 families earning £30,000 will no longer qualify for tax credits, the figures in the red book suggest. (Again, see page 64.) • The number of people facing marginal deduction rates of more than 90% (ie they will lose more than 90p in benefits for every extra £1 they earn) will rise by 20,000 as a result of the changes announced today. (The chart is on page 69 in the red book.) The Red book is the detailed Budget which is handed out detailing the budget. It might have been the beer but when I was in WLM on Friday I thought I saw that the Libdems that hang out there on a Friday were reading the Daily Telegraph instead on the Guardian.

Ali

You can get the Red Book here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/Budget/Budget2010/DG_188496

Arkady

"A family on £15,000 would be entitled to £4,290, instead of £4,335" £45 a year seems a reasonable contribution to the national debt. What would you have done, without driving us to bankrupcy? A

ADGS

Note also the banking levy, exactly the sort of proposal Labour should have been coming up with if it had still deserved the name, and exactly the sort of proposal which Twinspark's stereotype of the Tories would deny they could ever have contemplated. It's not a nice budget by any means - the VAT rise in particular is a poor choice - but especially after Brown's scorched Earth policy, it was never going to be pretty. I dread to think what Darling would have come up with if Gordon et al had accidentally held on.

andy

I don't really understand Housing Benefit, but I was surprised at what a big slug of welfare spending it accounts for and what a lot of money people can claim. On the face of it, £400pw (or £1600/month) as a cap doesn't strike me as unreasonable. In fact, it strikes me that £21k a year is a lot of money, especially relative to incomes.

However, I don't really understand the entitlement, nor the claimant mechanism, so I'm going to try and read up on it. Anyone want to give the fors and against?