MPs want to ban internal flights in UK and mount green propaganda campaign
- Thread starter Fullyplumped
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Feck off. If you think I'm getting a train that takes all day and involves changes to get to Bristol you are WRONG
I have NO faith in the rail network and I'm not prepared to spend a fortune to be bored shitless and face faff up after faff up, standing in wet and cold train stations waiting for a train that may or may not turn up.
And how many MPs never take internal flights anyway??
I hold myself to standards that MP's do not. Poor but virtuose, rather than rich but a bastard. Why would one hold the example of the worst excess as an excuse for one's minor excess?
Moral reletavism is silly.
(excuse my wrath, my brothers feet are kicking up a royal fucking stink)
/bedtime
So would you say that measure of control (and interference) of the state into individuals' day to day lives is the same now as it was a generation or two ago? That seems to be the implication of what you're saying. Which is rubbish!!
And the determining 'direction of the nation' is not the same thing at all as the level of control and interference the state has over individuals' day to day lives.
Those were the days when freedom had more expression in everyone's lives, MPs, people alike. How times change. Now security is the buzzword, security is the panacea for all. Freedom has been left in its wake, looking sad and bruised at this point in time.
elbows
Well-Known Member
But every important decision about the direction of the nation affects peoples lives, always has, always will, there is no real separation between the two.
When was the olden age of freedom and expression? I suspect its a bit of a myth, here are a range of reasons and examples why I do not think that my ideas about levels of state interference are rubbish:
Freedom of expression has not been outlawed, indeed there are more channels for people to express themselves now, and greater diversity of opinion, than there were in the past. Of course that does not mean the powers that be listen and take into account such views, but thats not new.
Oil and other energy crisis in the 1970s lead to lower speed limits, enforced shorter working week.
Rationing during and after world war 2 sounds like pretty drastic control over individuals to me. And Ive no doubt that should the circumstances deem it necessary, governments would not hesitate to impose such controls again in future. Attempts to paint it as a sign of a brand new government authoritarianism without considering the underlying resource issues will meet with scorn from me.
In areas where we could see a trend towards more government interference, including a range of things that cause the label 'nanny state' to be used, bear in mind that this role was not previously left to completely free and disconnected individuals. Rather other institutions and entities that make up society used to have greater responsibility for policing this stuff, eg the respected professional, the local community, organised religion.
If anything I could argue that the state has attempted to shirk from its role, farming out much responsibility to 'the marketplace'.
elbows
Well-Known Member
What about the meat workers who will lose their jobs? Se that argument can be used to defend any existing industry & lifestyle no matter how much of the problem it may be, therefore the jobs argument is a barrier to progress that we can ill afford to take too much account of.
The meat thing is a good point, and I can use it to llustrate my attitude towards giving things up. I eat a lot of meat, and Im not likely to give it up of my own free will right now. But when my consumption levels can no longer be sustained, I will come to terms with the loss and deal with it, regardless of whether it appears to be government, corporations, the rich, the scientists, foreigners or some other force 'getting in the way of my right to eat meat'.
Britains best asset in coping with big changes will be if the stoicism that we are stereotypically supposed to possess turns out to be more than myth. Hard times, desperation, brutal reality will force unwanted change upon us but we will try to cope as best we can.
If government doesnt try to change us then the bad stuff will still happen, and whilst we are understandably cynical about government right now, there could well come a time where its duty to manage things and care for us and treat us fairly seems more palatable than leaving it to forces that dont even have to pretend to live up to such aims.
Plus, with the time of getting to the airport, checking in, getting from the other airport, it can't even be much of a time saver...
It took 3 hours from newcastle to kings cross, I reckon it would take about that to fly once you've taken all the faffing into account.
Can't agree here mate, per person per mile, planes are far more polluting than trains.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
that's good because the labour leadership - not to mention the tories - seem rather lacking upstairs.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
what about them?
_angel_
.
Feck off. If you think I'm getting a train that takes all day and involves changes to get to Bristol you are WRONG
I have NO faith in the rail network and I'm not prepared to spend a fortune to be bored shitless and face faff up after faff up, standing in wet and cold train stations waiting for a train that may or may not turn up.
And how many MPs never take internal flights anyway??
You could guarantee a special case would be made for government ministers and that because they "need" to get from London to Glasgow quickly, where of course, the rest of us do not.
Why can't we invest in rail and subsidize the pricing instead of all this talk of banning stuff?
Because that would involve investing money in public infrastructure, which has been out of fashion for some time now.
I doubt the money is there to do it anyway.
_angel_
.
Yes banning stuff is easier than doing anything really useful.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
The current government are compulsive bansturbators
I would think you must be totally correct here!
But both of them pale into almost insignificance compared to the ruin we cause the world by feeding and rearing the billions of animals that no-one actually needs to eat!
But back to the trains and planes. There's other, more hidden factors. For example planes take you all over the world (admittedly not in this thread!), and help break down barriers between peoples and their cultures, thereby leading to more peace and less ill-feeling within the global climate.
And so on.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Bristly Pioneer
Anarchitect
So my boss flies down and back to London from Scotland every two weeks. It has always amazed me how he justifies this, but basically it's cheaper and faster for him, so works out cheaper for our company and the environment is left out of the question. I'm sure he feels a bit guilty, but not much.
As said above, with such a shit highly priced train network, it makes the decision easy for him.
Fair enough, go and ban non-essential flights, but at least back that up with some serious investment in the railways. Perhaps start taxing flights to take account of their impact and make the cost of flying reflective of it's environmental cost. Basically until it's cheaper and easier to travel by rail, people like my boss will fly. If you resort to banning and unpopular policy tools, then the next government will offer to un-ban it to get in power and the cycle will continue.
As said above, with such a shit highly priced train network, it makes the decision easy for him.
Fair enough, go and ban non-essential flights, but at least back that up with some serious investment in the railways. Perhaps start taxing flights to take account of their impact and make the cost of flying reflective of it's environmental cost. Basically until it's cheaper and easier to travel by rail, people like my boss will fly. If you resort to banning and unpopular policy tools, then the next government will offer to un-ban it to get in power and the cycle will continue.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I was quite pleased that some sales people at work had discovered that getting the train to scotland rather than flying was actually quite nice in some ways, and at another company I work for the boss has discovered that getting the train to London can be less hassle than trying to drive there.
elbows
Well-Known Member
As for investment in trains, there has actually been a reasonable amount recently and plans for quite a lot more, but nothing on the horizon that would completely revolutionise the experience, the price or the levels of overcrowding.
There was another thread not too long ago about high-speed rail plans for the UK, which was touted as being part of the solution to the domestic flights issue.
Less travel in general is bound to be quite a part of the way we tackle this stuff in future, so I fear those hoping for a price revolution within public transport are going to get angrier in future, not happier.
There was another thread not too long ago about high-speed rail plans for the UK, which was touted as being part of the solution to the domestic flights issue.
Less travel in general is bound to be quite a part of the way we tackle this stuff in future, so I fear those hoping for a price revolution within public transport are going to get angrier in future, not happier.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Shut up, you soapy cunt.
Nothing has been banned. 14 MPs have signed an "early day motion", that's all. Any idea how pathetic that is?
Signing the early day motion? Yes, most pathetic.
If you want to reduce internal flights for environmental reasons, tax em more or something. Banning them is absurd.
Next you'll need to be banning mobiles, tvs, computers, cars, motorbikes, xrays, oil, gas, and just about everything. In fact, only a return to the stone age can fix this planet of ours.
kained&able
Here for the football.
I reckon cutting down on domestic flights is a good idea and a lot more likely to happen then glying to forign.
Just need those superfast trains the japs/french have so that Gemini doesn't run out of music to listen to on her journey to london etc.
dave
Just need those superfast trains the japs/french have so that Gemini doesn't run out of music to listen to on her journey to london etc.
dave
_angel_
.
less travel isn't going to happen
elbows
Well-Known Member
I know its hard to imagine right now, but just wait and see, brutal economic realities will leave their mark and will bring about change of a magnitude that is hard to envisage if left to policies such as tweaking the tax system.
_angel_
.
You think that people won't travel looking for work in a crash?!
elbows
Well-Known Member
No, more complex than that. A lot of travel is discretionary, and a combination of travel costing more and people having less money will make a very big difference to the overall amount of travel being done.
I dont have a crystal ball, things may not turn out the way I expect, but at a minimum I do not expect travel to keep expanding in the way it has in the last century, and as there is currently plenty of waste there is lots of room for travel reduction.
_angel_
.
If train travel was free or very cheap this wouldn't matter. I cannot see why you would want to stop people travelling by trains, since it's the least polluting way we have at present of transporting a lot of people about the place quickly.
People won't stop travelling - even if they wanted to we would have to have self sufficient communities, which we clearly don't.
geminisnake
a complex mass of conflicting ideas
Because that would mean a bunch of wanky politicians would have to put their money where their mouths are. They spout a lot of shite about caring about the environment and use it to raise taxes and monies for them to piss up against a wall(or into a moat, pond, etc)
They don't genuinely give a FCUK.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I dont want to stop people travelling by train, I dont want to stop people travelling in general, and Im not suggesting that people will stop travelling completely.
What I am suggesting is that just as travel has become hugely more common, it can go the other way. And looking at what I expect to happen with energy, it will, thats my prediction anyway.
As for trains, its a question of capacity. One of the reasons they dont make it cheaper is that they dont want to encourage too much more travel by train because capacity on certain routes & times is already at or near the limit.
I want massive investment to boost capacity, I would like new routes, I dont want to see people priced out of travel, I just feel it is an inevitable part of the future whatever we do to try to avoid it. There are limits which we've been able to overcome via easy exploitation of certain cheap fuels, and when that era ends some of the progress of humankind will be undone. It wont be a return to the stoneage though, it will be a blend of old and new, with some pain and suffering but hopefully a brightside also.
What I am suggesting is that just as travel has become hugely more common, it can go the other way. And looking at what I expect to happen with energy, it will, thats my prediction anyway.
As for trains, its a question of capacity. One of the reasons they dont make it cheaper is that they dont want to encourage too much more travel by train because capacity on certain routes & times is already at or near the limit.
I want massive investment to boost capacity, I would like new routes, I dont want to see people priced out of travel, I just feel it is an inevitable part of the future whatever we do to try to avoid it. There are limits which we've been able to overcome via easy exploitation of certain cheap fuels, and when that era ends some of the progress of humankind will be undone. It wont be a return to the stoneage though, it will be a blend of old and new, with some pain and suffering but hopefully a brightside also.
Similar threads
