Thursday night, during another stroppy and less than impressive full city council meeting, one of the only things the Lib Dems and Labour managed to agree on was voting down Tory leader Bunter Eddy’s motion to have a referendum on road charging.
This means that the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens are all agreed that congestion charging is the way forward for Bristol and are prepared to impose it.
Beware, however, any claims these parties make regarding the financial benefits road charging might bring to the city and the potential it has for funding improvements to Bristol’s ramshackle public transport system.
Southville’s Green councillor Charlie Bolton has already confidently claimed on his blog:
Serious action on public transport in Bristol will only be achieved with money – shed loads of money in fact. Congestion charging is a means of raising shed loads of money (a tax on motorists in fact).
But blogger and Ealing councillor Phil Taylor has spent considerable time doing the sums and he’s calculated that London’s congestion charge has generated a surplus of just £14m from a gross revenue of over £900m in the five years the scheme has been running.
This means that just 12p from the charge of £8 a day is potentially available for “serious action on public transport”.
The majority of the money generated from the scheme seems to have been spent on the massive capital costs of the project and the rest has been handed to the privileged, New Labour-friendly private sector partner for the project – Britain’s worst firm – Crapita.
Predictably a lot of money has also gone on advertising and yet another public relations gravy train with Transport for London spending £78 million a year on marketing and communications for what is effectively a monopoly anyway.
That’s over twenty-five times more cash going into a small industry of self-styled media creatives than is spent, from the supposedly revenue generating congestion charge, on transport improvements for people in London with proper jobs!
This could well be noteworthy here in Bristol because the other unaminous decision at Thursday’s city council meeting was to set up a transport authority for the greater Bristol region based on the Transport for London model!
Bristol’s young people and school leavers might want to bear this in mind for the future too. It looks like a training in PR and advertising is likely to be of far more benefit to them – though possibly not the city – than a training in traditionally useful skills like civil engineering or, say, train driving.
Say what you will about TfL, but at least they got the buses running on time 😐
Bristol Blogger,
Just because I voted to ammend the Conservative referendum does not mean I would necessarily support a congestion charge. The Tory motion would only allow a vote in Bristol, all of our neighbours would have had no say if they had got their way.
I agree with you that congestion charging soaks up cash on admin. It is a terrible way to raise money to pay for public transport. It is though a way to cause model shift in transport choices.
A better ‘transport tax’ is work place parking – charging a tax on all of the middle managers free car parking places in the city centre. This is a cheap way of raising money but has been discounted because – suprise suprise certain forces oppose this. We wonder why?
None of these methods though raise anywhere near the amount of money needed to provide decent public transport infrastructure.
Pingback: Anarcho traffic management: is it the future? « The Bristol Blogger
BristleKRS, I don’t think you live in London somehow, like I do. TFL, under the control of Ken Livingstone, has hiked up both tube and bus prices at alarming levels since he’s been mayor (here’s a typical feature on one of his rises from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jan/10/london.transport ). So not only has he clobbered motorists, but also tube and bus users. There have been no big rises this year as he’s fighting for his career in the London Mayoral elections. Labour know that any increase in income tax will cost them dear, but they also don’t want to be seen to be associated with tax raising via congestion charging which is why they have handed the responsibility to lots of little livingstones in local councils across the UK. Just look at the board of http://www.cfit.gov.uk. The sad reality of all this is that the theory of man made global warming has been hijacked by the left as a excuse for generating taxes, nothing more than the old fashioned redistribution of wealth. Ken Livingstone, TFL, and Bristol Council will not be happy until every car manufacturer has deserted the UK as a lost cause. All of this with a possible economic downturn looming. Bristols shiny new shopping centre will look like a ghost town if congestion charging goes ahead, and local transport costs will spiral as they realise they have a captive market. Also, the money raised by congestion charging will not be ploughed in to making Bristol a better place to live (and God knows, it needs a cash injection), it will just make a juicy fat profit for Capita or IBM. Any idealistic notions that the council may have will simply not materialise.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-17202832-details/C-charge+fat+cats+bonanza/article.do;jsessionid=VvnQG45BzpCJ22c0JGds2qlWYJQ65VSg8vnW1nbsSfx3z7PnKhGv!-1414044699
This subject will be a decisive matter at both local and national elections, and left wing councils all over the country are keenly awaiting the outcome of the London mayoral election in May before finalising plans. If Livingstone wins in London, expect Bristol Council to re-phase the traffic lights to slow down traffic prior to congestion charging.
David, David – watch your blood pressure!
Firstly, no I don’t live in London (my name and the name of this blog where you have found me may offer clues on that front)…
Secondly, did you not detect the slightest hint of Godwinian quippery?
Thirdly, no matter how evil old Ken is, whichever way you slice it London has decent (and affordable) mass transit when compared with Bristol.
As for the Broadmead expansion, it’s going to be a shithole no matter whether there is a congestion charge or not. That’s what shopping centres are.
And the ‘left hijacks manmade climate change to raise taxation’ theory? Well, nice try, but I don’t think anyone’s likely to bite, because you seem like such a reasonable and non-bonkers sort of chap 😉
Blimey – in the ‘Recent Comments’ section on the right it looks like I’m giving birth to my councillor 😮
“Congratulations, Mrs KRS – it’s a LibDem!”
*Faints*
More gas and air, quick!
“Thirdly, no matter how evil old Ken is, whichever way you slice it London has decent (and affordable) mass transit when compared with Bristol.”
BristleKRS, you should visit London and buy a ticket from Tottenham Court Rd to Oxford Circus for£4.00. When Livingstone and his TFL cronies came to power in 2000 it was £1.50.It would be cheaper for a small family to now do the journey in a black cab. How is that affordable? I can’t recall inflation running quite that rampant. The Oyster card also just makes any future big increases more invisible to the user. On top of this the bendy buses were introduced to deter car users, and now act as a free bus service for idiots.
Global warming is a issue, but is rapidly peeing people off when it’s used as excuse for more indirect tax raising.
The normal working man is more concerned with making a living and feeding his family, not being constantly ripped off by local/national government.
I know Bristol well, and personally think that Councillors there should just concentrate on far more serious issues than using motorists as a cash cow. Most people don’t expect much more of a council than making sure the bins are emptied every week.
Tottenham Court Road to Oxford Circus for £4 ?
It’s about half a mile. Why use a tube (and add the walk between the trains and the surface) at all? And if you do, why not use an oyster card – it’s far quicker than buying a ticket and it’ll set you back £1.50 at the most.
This man is talking rubbish.
‘This man is talking rubbish.”
Am I Peter? So what I say is not true? Sorry you couldn’t grasp my point that these fares are used to fleece visiting families/tourists (for example) and a cab is now cheaper in this instance than using the tube. I was using that as a example, How about Baker St to Westminster? Is that more helpful to you, it’s 3 stops for £4.
So, you don’t agree with the reality that we have the most expensive public transport in the world?
Pro congestion charge are we Peter?
“Pro congestion charge are we Peter?”
What difference does that make to fares in London?
For me, the congestion charge has made it easier and quicker to get around London, and the oyster card system makes it quick and cheap. I’ve just topped up my card on line in anticipation of a visit to London. It’ll cost me less to get right across London than it does to go a couple of miles to Temple Meads on the bus.
I think the first thing Bristol needs is a ‘smart card’ system that can be used across different modes (and different companies) and is capped at a fixed maximum fare per day – like oyster.
Congestion charging is a different issue – but if we get it, I hope it will be selective, penalising the most polluting cars.
David Peters wrote “I can’t recall inflation running quite that rampant …”
It’s the food inflation that bothers me.
Looks like the chemical credit card is running out.
Peak oil. That and the law of supply and demand. billions of people competing for degrading or vanishing resources.
Maybe if more people had listened to the environmental movement and changed the direction the world’s headed over the last 70 years, we wouldn’t be facing a new 1930s style conflagration.
Peter, I asked you if you were saying it’s not true that a single zone 1 cash fare in London is £4, representing a 266% increase from 2000 when it was £1.50. I had to pay this when I forgot my oyster card the other day. You have evaded answering this almost like a media trained politician, taking the view that I’m stupid or something. I should imagine that you are Peter Goodwin, green party activist in Bristol, in which case you are probably likely to avoid answering anything at all about the true financial costs of your one issue politics.
I would suggest to the people of Bristol they look at the rapidly becoming unacceptable costs of these transport policies in London, and to bear in mind that if they even only initially charge “the most polluting cars” that the tax/charge will slowly creep up year on year to include every vehicle within a short time. Of course, these costs will then be passed on to the end user, so Pedestria will end up paying even more for his food. You have to bear in mind the hidden agendas of a lot of the people involved in the decision making process, that as a law abiding motorist you are seen as a cash cow.
David Peters – green politics is the politics of life. Its only single issue if you consider that life is a single issue
Its a rather bizarre reversal of reality for you to accuse a green of responding like a ‘media trained politician’. This is not what you get from Green Party people, who tend to be ‘straight and honest to a fault’ in my experience. It is most certainly what you do get from conventional Lab/Lib/Con politics however, who will spin that a circle is square (or that consumer society can be green) if it suits them!
On the ‘hard done by’ motorist – So much has been (and is being) done to gear up our society to car use, accomodating its growth in all sorts of ways – even to the extent of redesigning whole cities – that we have in the UK effectively had at least 50 yrs of what amounts to car subsidy. If it has become so expensive to own and run a car these days why is it that there are more two and three car households than ever??
David, I think you’re missing the point that Pedestria (she’s a woman by the way) is making. Food inflation is set to rise big time – more land is being used for biofuel production and there is ever increasing demand from Chindia. Fuel inflation is also set to rise – our ever increasing fuel usage here in the west, coupled with the growing demands from a rapidly industrialising Chindia will see to that.
As far as a congestion charge in Bristol, I wouldn’t mind as long as the funds were used to provide a decent transport system, however, like BB and many others, I too have my suspicions that very little of any monies raised would go toward this. Bristol has an atrocious record when it comes to spending money – it would more likely end up lining the pockets of CONsultants – Atkins and First anyone?
A congestion charge is a regressive tax that shafts the poor.
It’s mainly admired by middle class idiots who are out of touch with reality and can afford a bloody congestion charge anyway.
For every mythical 4×4 driver commuting to work because they’re too lazy to walk I can find you a single parent in Hartcliffe driving her kids to school every morning in North Somerset so they can get something resembling an education and then driving into the city centre to work.
And our politicians support for someone like this? Charge them £50 a week extra they can’t afford!
And the people proposing this congestion charge? The same bloody people that can’t run an education system and can’t organise a transport system.
Piss takers, the lot of ’em!
VowlestheGreen, so “green politics is the politics of life” is it? I don’t think it’s a bizarre reversal of reality to accuse a green of responding like a ‘media trained politician’ at all. The Green Party has put up a candidate for the post of Mayor of London, and I’m pretty sure she will be having media training just like the other candidates. I have friends of various political persuasions who also think their beliefs are “the politics of life”, they also attempt to take the moral high ground on various issues. This is all part of a mature democracy.
The points I was making against Peter Goodwin were not theoretical, but hard facts about the likely impact of a congestion charging scheme in Bristol set against what has happened in London in relation to a simultaneous massive hike in TFL cash fares. Something which Peter clearly didn’t want to acknowledge, and I believe would happen in Bristol.
On the subject of the hard done by motorist, I believe as a motorist that I already pay enormous duties to the exchequer in the form of fuel duty and road tax. The government have handed local councils the poison chalice of congestion charges/taxes because it’s so unpalatable to the majority of people that it would most likely lose them a election. I believe most people attempt to do what they can in terms of recycling and other green issues, but the lines have become blurred in relation to other political parties interpretation of green politics. The London Mayors policies are, in my opinion, a attempt at the grand socialist principle of redistribution of wealth hidden under the guise of green politics, something which the Green Party should be very wary of in terms of future public support. Why didn’t he roll out the extended congestion charge area to the east of London as well as the west? Not a very difficult question to answer, is it? Cleaner air will be achieved by technology, not punitive taxes which will only alienate the masses away from green issues.
On the issue of 2 or 3 car households, I think that’s a decision that the household concerned with needs to think about without being made to made to feel like some sort of criminal by any political group. Too often outbursts by green motivated politicians sound like the politics of envy to the middle classes, who having earned their money feel they can spend it as they like. What is criminal in this country is the incredibly expensive railway system, which often leaves households with no other alternative than a second car parked outside. I travel back and forth to Bristol very regularly, and can not afford to use the train at the current fare levels.
Bristol Dirt Bag (love the name, by the way), I wasn’t missing the point that Pedestria was making at all, and apologize for getting her sex wrong. You are also absolutely right about what would happen to the proceeds of any congestion charge in Bristol, check out the money that Capita made in London and how The Times covered Capita’s chairmans departure (if you don’t remember, read the following: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/support_services/article694449.ece)
Well said thebristolblogger, and the only reason why The Lib dems and Labour councillors won’t give Bristol a referendum on congestion charging is they know the result will probably be identical to Kens ‘consultation’ in London with the western extension. 70% of residents and 80% of businesses said ‘no’, but got it anyway. So much for democracy. Perhaps they should bear in mind that those percentages will count against them in a local election? But, hey, a load of people with no experience of life in the real world know best….
Hard done-by motorist? As an occasional one myself I find quite the opposite.
For starters the City Council allow me to park on the street 24/7, occupying a space worth conservatively £500 p.a. and what do I pay for the use of this? – zilch! Even with the proposed CPZ I’ll only be paying £40 p.a., a pittance in relation to the true value of the space I consume.
And when I drive I find that the road system is managed overwhelmingly for my convenience, over and above that of pedestrians and cyclists. And what do I pay for that valuable facility? – again zilch, excepting for the tax element on fuel, but that is just pennies a mile, nothing at all in relation to the market value of urban road space.
It all adds up to a huge subsidy to car owners of hundreds of pounds a year, at the expense of the general tax payer, including of course those who aren’t car owners (typically the poorest members of society). If congestion charging and CPZs ever cancel out that subsidy, they will be doing no more than restoring a level playing field.
Back from a day trip to London to see all these posts….
For the record, it cost me £6.60 each way (with a railcard – £10 without) to Paddington and another 90p to get over to Lewisham on the bus (thank you oyster). So I have no problem with London fares, especially when compared with Bristol ! David’s figures for cash fares on the tube are no doubt factually true, but so selective as to be grossly misleading. Which is what, I’m sure, they were intended to be.
Isn’t the hiking of cash fares in London (as against the far lower prepayment fares) linked to keeping cash transactions to a minimum ? If only Bristol buses were cashless !
BB: “A congestion charge is a regressive tax that shafts the poor……….For every mythical 4×4 driver commuting to work because they’re too lazy to walk I can find you a single parent in Hartcliffe driving her kids to school every morning in North Somerset”
Aren’t you doing the same as David Peters here – inflating a single example as if it was true of the whole system? By and large, the wealthier the driver, the bigger and more polluting the car. And the poorer the traveller, the more likely they are to be on public transport. So a congestion charge, properly applied, can be progressive.
What would you think of personal carbon allowances, equally shared and tradeable? And a car-free city centre (except for disabled badge holders)?
Chris, your contribution was just cliche leftie nonsense, you have to do better than that here mate.
David, your response is typical of someone who can’t challenge an argument on logical grounds.
Chris, I simply don’t believe you have a car to post a piece like that.
Peter, the last post of yours was a good read. Glad you recognize my rant about cash fares being factually true. But whilst the bus from Paddington to Lewisham was good value at 90p, how long did that take? 2 hours? I’m so busy I can’t afford to spend that sort of time on a bus and guarantee being anywhere on time. I do agree with you that Bristol could do with a comparable value bus service though.
On your point about ‘the wealthier the driver, the bigger and more polluting the car’ this is just a far too simple way of looking at it, very wealthy people I know drive tiny little cars so as to avoid being ripped off by left wing councils and less wealthy people I know drive huge cars. Guess it’s a aspiration thing. So your views about a progressive Bristol congestion charge aren’t so much green as just the socialist mantra of redistribution of wealth, the very criticism I make of Ken Livingstone.
Also, no city centre will be car-free Peter, you couldn’t tax that.
Have a nice weekend.
David Peters wrote “Chris, I simply don’t believe you have a car to post a piece like that.”
Still at a loss for a rational response, David?
David Peters, my question was ‘ If it has become so expensive to own and run a car these days why is it that there are more two and three car households than ever??’
You dont seem to have attempted an answer. Does owning and running a car (or two or three!) now take a greater proportion of a person’s income than it used to??
You also dont seem to have demonstrated why green politics is not the ‘politics of life’ (and therefore concerned with all matters relating to it ie not single issue). It seems self-evident to me that Greens root their politics in the source of all our wealth and wellbeing – ie the natural world – and design policies for all areas of government aimed at sustaining quality of life. Still think Greens are single issue?? http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/index.html
No. Considerable numbers of the working poor drive vehicles as a pure necessity (and run up either considerable debt to do so or forego other expenses such as family holidays, good food, trips out etc. to do so). The example of getting kids to school and yourself to work is just one of many.
For instance, how would you propose getting two kids under 3 to nursery without a car? – and if you think you can do it on a bus every day then you’re seriously living in cloud cuckooland and I suggest you try some of these things for youself before trying to dump this nonsense on other people.
Or how about doing a weekly shop for a family? Do you seriously believe that it is practical to get 2 adults, 2 children and maybe 8 bags of shopping on and off a bus and then walk whatever the remaining distances are between the bus stop and your home or the supermarket? Again go and try this for yourself and then come back and tell us what happened. People simply don’t have enough hours in the day for this nonsense.
Or how about my next door neighbour? He drives goods vehicles out of Avonmouth. He usually has to be at work at 6.00am and sometimes at 5.00am. How’s he supposed to get there from Bristol? Cycle? Getting up at 4.00am is bloody tough. Do you think perhaps the lazy, polluting scumbag working 12 – 14 hour days to feed his family should get up at 3.30am instead?
What time do you and the rest of your party have to get up to go to work in the morning? How many more hours do you think it’s acceptable for people to have to work to pay for your glorious new tax? Would you be happy with my neighbour doing a 16 hour day? Or maybe an 18 hour day to pay into your council coffers to fund your pet schemes – environment officers, real nappy advisors, waste doctors, plastic bag enforcement teams, public transport PR spokesmen or whatever other daft, expensive and marginal bureaucratic nonsense you dream up in the name of saving the planet next.
Your proposals simply aren’t in tune with the reality of most Bristolians’ lives. You’re convinced that driving a vehicle is some sort of luxury choice by greedy, cigar-smoking capitalists demanding their right to pollute the world. It’s not. It’s the rational choice (and a large expense) of tens of thousands of ordinary families, often on low incomes, trying to keep their heads above water.
You seem to still be living in a world where mum’s at home every day with the kids and can wander up to the (non-existent) local shops each day to pay premium prices for their convenient, high quality local food; where the doctors, the dentist, the chemist, the school and the nursery are just 5 minutes walk away; where buses run on time, to places you want to go with people to help you load the pram and the shopping and then provide a place to store it all.
The breadwinner in your fantasy world, meanwhile, can waft into work around ten, leave again at four, work from home if they feel like it, have endlessly flexible working arrangements and command a salary of at least £30k a year to feed, clothe and entertain this happy, sustainable family.
You simply have no idea how people live, how much money they have to live on, how little time they have or what jobs they’re doing for what kind of money.
I’ve argued before for a “shared space” city centre (this is also discussed in the Guardian today). As for carbon trading. For one thing it will involve huge levels of bureaucracy to administer and it will simply favour the rich and wealthy (the people that your policies are blatantly for) who can buy endless carbon credits at the expense of the poor who cannot.
Your ideas will simply continue the policies that has been aggressively pursued in this city for 40 years now of driving the poor out of the city centre, privatising its public space and turning it into a surveillance-heavy enclave for the privileged and the wealthy only.
What you need to do is come up with a serious long term transport policy for the city to combat the pro-car planning and transport policies that have now ruled for 50 years and dictate and shape our lives in this city. Sticking up a few cameras and giving some New Labour-friendly company the right to charge people large sums of money for driving around while telling the poor to take the bus is not that policy. It’s extortion.
There may well be many people who have arranged their lives in such a way that they have become totally dependent on cars, but there are many who have realistic choices about whether to use a car or not, at least for some journeys.
According to the Joint Local Transport Plan 21% of journeys to work are under 2 km, a distance that is easily cycled in a few minutes and walkable in 25 minutes. Both these activities make an important contribution to personal health and well-being so the time spent is not wasted but invested.
Yet 45% of these very short journeys are made by car. The time involved, which in congested conditions can be much slower than by bicycle, is of course largely wasted. The car is contributing to congestion and air pollution, the latter more so because the engine and catalytic converter will be cold and inefficient for most of the journey.
Surely it makes sense to remove the deterrents to walking and cycling, and to remove the subsidies to car ownership and use, to at least allow people to make more sensible choices about how they travel.
Wow! Bristol Blogger, I never realised just how low the environment comes down your list of priorities. The irony of your agreement with Mr David Peters from an opposite end of the political spectrum, is delicious.
The very reasonable arguments put forward by Chris Hutt, Peter Goodwin and VowlestheGreen are unanswerable in any rational way – as can be seen from the lame retorts from the anti-congestion chargers. When will Greens realise the hard truth that, by evolutionary nature, many people don’t give a monkeys about a reasonable, fair, ecologically sustainable future. All that many people have time and energy to care about is, as Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it “themselves and their families”.
British people are living way beyond the means of the Earth to support us. Inflation-busting tax hikes, charges, rationing and usage restrictions are just some of the policies that the authorities will resort to with ever more draconian desperation, to vainly stave off the evil day – the end of their failed Modern Experiment.
There is, and never can be any “serious long term transport policy for the city to combat the pro-car planning and transport policies that have now ruled for 50 years”, as you put it BB. That is a figment of your imagination. Public transport can never provide the ease, convenience and status of individual car transport, so most people simply will not choose it.
We’re doooomed, Captain Mainwaring!
The irony of my agreement with a Tory, albeit for very different reasons, is no more or less delicious than the irony that Greens – with their so-called “new politics” – are entirely in agreement with Labour’s new privatised tax and spend welfare state. Where they tax us and then spend it on producing profits for private, global corporations.
But then scratch a Green and underneath you invariably find an authoritarian socialist on a bike.
The rest of your post is typical of the kind of apocalyptic, millenarian beliefs that have plagued the left and progressives for at least two generations now. While the right has got on with making all the intellectual and ideological running for the last 50 years or so, the left has basically stood around ranting that we’re all going to die.
In my youth it was because of nuclear apocalypse or maybe through some total economic collapse of the kind that has been endlesly predicted since Marx in about 1867. More recently we’ve been told we’re all going to die through global warming or some major conflagration caused by some “Clash of Civilizations” originating in the Middle East or because we’re going to run out of oil.
None of this is ever going to happen in the way you think. It never does. So why not get on with developing that properly progressive transport policy for the next 50 years instead?
BB said – “More recently we’ve been told we’re all going to die through global warming …..None of this is ever going to happen in the way you think.”
The scientific community tell us, almost unanimously, that global warming is happening and that, if not checked, it will bring about catastrophic changes in the ecosystem on which we all ultimately depend for survival.
Billions of people already live an extremely marginal existence and are very vulnerable to environmental changes. There is evidence that they are already suffering from the early manifestations of global warming, such as floods and crop failures.
Are you saying that the scientists have got it all wrong? Or that we will somehow discover some as yet unknown technical fix for it all? Or what? What are we supposed to understand by “none of this is ever going to happen in the way you think”?
History should teach us that catastrophic failures in social advancement do occur, resulting in millions of deaths. As society becomes more technically advanced its capacity for self-destruction increases too. The two world wars and the brutal Nazi/soviet tyrannies of the last century are recent examples of what can happen when it all goes pear shaped.
Those of us who call ourselves environmentalists, which in my case at least does not mean being a socialist (although I do sometimes ride a bike), feel that this is something we cannot ignore, hoping that it will somehow go away.
All the evidence is that we need to develop ways of living which are compatible with the Earth’s capacity to absorb punishment. If we all shrug our shoulders and say “what can I do?” then there will be nothing to stop the worst happening.
I think someone who says:
Is quite a long way from climate change denial.
Is a perfectly reasonable comment to make to someone who says we are at the “end of [the] failed Modern Experiment”. That’s an extremely pessimistic statement and optimism about the future is not climate change denial either.
We’re in danger of falling into the Israel/Palestine trope here. That’s where the purely pragmatic view that Israel has a right to exist gets transformed into unhelpful accusations that you’re “a Zionist” or worse a “a Neo-Con”.
Here it seems rejecting a congestion charge is tantamount to climate change denial. Inaccurate name calling isn’t going to help anyone.
The discussion on here is actually about how you politically organise major social, economic and cultural change. I believe you do that with the solidarity and support of the majority of people not through an elite imposing change on them.
But BB, when you say…
‘ More recently we’ve been told we’re all going to die through global warming or some major conflagration caused by some “Clash of Civilizations” originating in the Middle East or because we’re going to run out of oil.
None of this is ever going to happen in the way you think. It never does.’ ….it does suggest that
you dont have the scientific evidence on both ‘dying through global warming’ and ‘running out’ of oil in the right perspective.
Vowlsie, you seem to be suggesting I’m not being sufficiently fundamentalist enough for you.
Good. I reject all forms of fundamentalism whether social, political or religious. They’re the preserve of the fringe nutter and the totalitarian.
At present what you’re selling is a superior moral position and a fundamentalist agenda which you just want to impose upon people on the basis that you find their entirely rational choices to be wrong.
This won’t work. You’ll never achieve any level of popular support by forcing people to make what are irrational choices for them based on your personal moral code and fundamentalist beliefs. And unfortunately politics is a popularity contest (or a violent mess).
What you need to do is create new rational choices for people. That’s what politics is about. Anyone can have a moral position and an agenda. Some people can even impose them for a short time.
But the idea of being a politician is that you create change by taking people with you. That means you have to understand them and their lives and the choices they make.
Someone mentioned Thatcher above, the person who overturned the post-war consensus and the last politician to create real social and economic change in this country (whether you liked it or not). Then they sneered “all that many people have time and energy to care about is, as Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it “themselves and their families””.
What kind of politics is it that you people are proposing where you just sneer at people and their lives because they fail to match your own personal moral codes?
Simply telling people they’ve arranged their lives around cars, they’re wrong and they should not any more is not a serious political solution.
Frankly, it’s a little bit mad. The Green ideal that we should all walk to work, walk to school, shop locally, use local services etc. is all well and good. But I calculate that the only area in Bristol where this could be realistically achieved is somewhere like Redland where houses are £0.5m a time.
Should 400,000 move there then? And how would they buy a house there anyway if the average household income is circa £30k a year? They need to earn five times more than that.
The solutions you’re offering at present are therefore completely irrational and irrelevant to the majority of people. You need to make them relevant to people and their lives.
And you won’t do that by banging on and on about science, obscure UN committees and the evils of the motor car in isolation from real people living real lives.
BB – No, I’m saying that your position on the very strong scientific evidence about global warming seems at the least inconsistent/uncertain. I generally agree with your statements about fundamentalism, though I have to say that you quite often seem to take a pretty fundamentalist position on many issues to me (people only have to look over your blog to see for themselves)!
I try to base my views on evidence and reason, which is why I’m asking you about the science you seem to be poo pooing (your reference to ‘obscure UN committees’ surely cant be referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can it ? The Nobel Peace Prize winning panel who have compiled evidence and made recommendations that could be used to save many millions of lives if only governments would act on it…?). Its just not reasonable for you to refer to me ‘banging on and on about science’ whilst at the same time calling me a fundamentalist. Its very serious evidence I’m talking about and fundamentalists generally dont overly concern themselves with it (they are more concerned with a particular dogma). I have to say that at times you sound more like someone with a dogma to defend than I do (why else would you be so dismissive of the science?).
I can’t fathom why you think what you say above is a criticism of me, since I generally agree with most of what you say! ‘Superior’ moral positions and fundamentalism are not what I am about. I think people are indeed often making rational choices that are not green ones because of the way our society’s incentives and disincentives are at present, though you can often turn this rational behaviour on its head by introducing other factors (there are competing rationalities eg the economic under current conditions, and the ecological).
Imposition of course wont work – it wont be sustainable. I agree with you that we do have to create new rational choices, and this is where we should routinely factor in ecological considerations and change society’s goals.
You said ‘Simply telling people they’ve arranged their lives around cars, they’re wrong and they should not any more is not a serious political solution’ but surely you must realise there’s a lot more to what I (and the greens) stand for than that! See here for transport policies for instance: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsstr.html In any case you’ve got the wrong end of the stick if you think its people I’m blaming – its governments, councils and businesses that are my primary focus (it obviously has to be this way if we are to shape a green society).
I think that its not easy to live the ‘green ideal’ as you describe it. Society should be making it a lot easier for people to do as you suggest, though government/councils/businesses often close down local facilities (post offices, swimming pools, pubs, corner shops…) whilst at the same time claiming green credentials!! However, what you say about Redland I cant agree with. I know many people dotted all over Bristol who, whilst they may not be living a ‘green ideal’ are even now able to walk to work, school, shops etc., including myself in Knowle.
Bristol Blogger wrote: “The discussion on here is actually about how you politically organise major social, economic and cultural change. I believe you do that with the solidarity and support of the majority of people not through an elite imposing change on them.”
This sounds exactly like the sort of reassuringly bland statement we’ve heard from our leaders for decades, while they continue their Modern Experiment of Globalisation, destroying people’s traditional ways of life to leave them with no alternative but to become good workers and consumers.
Likewise, you haven’t satisfactorily answered any of the many very reasonable points raised. If anyone is sneering here, it is you Bristol Blogger, slagging others off as “superior“, “middle class idiots” or “fundamentalists”.
The modern consumerist lifestyle you are defending simply cannot be sustained ecologically or in terms of social justice. It only continues because it is being propped up by the military-industrial and corporate might of Europe and the US.
Our leaders will make wars on other peoples in order to keep the petrol flowing into the tanks of British cars and lorries.
Our leaders run the WTO and World Bank to ensure that the nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America are forced to open up their countries so that the people and land can be exploited for the benefit of low prices to keep consumers happy over here.
If condemning our Western exploitation of the desperately poor in other countries as criminal and unsustainable is “pessimism” then I’m happy to be called a pessimist. I’m surprised you didn’t go the whole hog and accuse me of being “a moaning Minnie” and “talking Britain down”.
I’m not sure how you got from:
To the fact that I support the WTO, the World Bank etc.
But no matter. The fact is if you want to tackle these things then you need to build a mass political movement to do it. In order to do that you will need to understand people a little more and condemn them a little less.
Bristol Blogger: “the fact that I support the WTO, the World Bank”.
Huh?
BB continues …. “if you want to tackle these things then you need to build a mass political movement to do it. In order to do that you will need to understand people a little more and condemn them a little less.
Go ahead. You’re welcome. And you might like to heed your own advice on that too.
Can’t speak for others, but my view is that this system is so fucked that it can’t be mended, reformed, whatever.
Babylon’s going down.
Good title for a song.