Is this country too London centric.......?

[Brian Kirby]

Overall, I kind of agree with you, Roger, but in other ways I don't. For example:

RogerC - 2014-02-12 8:53 PM Meters or not Brian...which given the content of the report is irrelevant anyway, and I don't see the relevance of the commercial rate seeing as the report clearly considers 'households'. 

Meters, because in your post to which I was responding, you referred to "water rates", which do/did not take account of actual consumption. Meters allow residents some degree of water, and so cost, saving, rates were just based on the rateable value of the property. The commercial rate is, IMO, relevant, because since it is presumably commerce that is the main benefiiary of tourism, and since the proportion of water costs falling on households is being stated to be too high, transferring some of the cost from households to businesses might result in fairer distribution.

.............But as a mark of the unfairness of privatisation that meant 3% of the population have been paying for the upkeep of one-third of the UK's coastline, the average national charge for water and sewerage is just £388 in 2013-14."

 

Don't see that this can be anywhere near true, and the claim seems based on a highly selective interpretation by someone of the figures. Best figures I can find are UK coastline length: 11,073 miles. Cornwall coastline length: 422 miles. Proportion, therefore, a shade over 3.8%.

Subsidies are a way of life whether you, or I like them is irrelevant.................The following is a prime example of 'subsidies' paid out:

Between 2007-2011 £3 Billion of taxpayers money was handed to the top five rail companies.  ..................

But that was my point. I'm not keen on subsidies from Government handed out in this way. It seems you don't like the railway subsidy, but would like a Cornish subsidy. Surely, not? One or the other?

[RogerC]

Hi Brian,

 

It is possible the quote regarding the coastline was somewhat misleading.  I presumed it referred to the 'upkeep' of coastline meaning beaches of which I'm sure you'll agree Cornwall has rather a lot to maintain.  As for metered water or not, I accepted the report quoting 'average'  bills as simply that....the 'average'.  This would imply the results were based on the 'total' amount of domestic charges imposed by the Water company divided by the number of households.  I accept that those on meters would 'probably' pay less and those who are 'un-metered' would simply pay the 'rateable' charge.

 

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your situation/geographic location and 'financial position' subsidies are a necessity if there is to be a degree of 'fairness'.....even if it only 'perceived'  and not 'actual' fairness.  What I don't agree with is 'subsidies' that allow companies to pour taxpayers money into shareholders pockets.  Maybe it's time to 'nationalise' the rail network?  After all if as it appears it is sucking in so much public money simply to keep going we might as well make it one big national interest.  At least that way there would only be one 'outfit' to deal with instead of the 'web of confusion' that is the way currently and only one tier of 'high level managers' to pay bonuses to....  :-D

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

On the water thing, I have a feeling the author may have been trying to equate the total length of "blue" beach in Cornwall to that of the rest of the UK. I believe Sutherland alone actually has more coast than was put forward for the whole coast of the UK. But, the figures are all over the place, depending for example on how far up river estuaries is counted as "coast". However, I assume the blue beaches were adopted as an aid to tourism, so it still seems to me unreasonable to expect households to bear the brunt of their maintenance costs, and more to should be transferred to commerce, who benefit the most.

 

There is a rather arcane formula used by govertment to calculate how much money is transferred between the counties. It is much argued over, and it is frequently alleged that governments of the day set out to skew the outcome to favour the counties politically favourable to them. However, I should much prefer any re-distribution of local authority funding to be carried in that way, than by the creation of ad-hoc grants for this and that, which seem to me destined to end in some form of corruption.

 

Re the railways, the privatisation was a mess, and remains so. The original reason was that they cost too much to run, were over unionised, sclerotically managed, worn out, and so should be privately managed on the basis that only private industry can manage effectively. Some of that has worked. All credit where it is due, Branson picked some excellent people to manage Virgin rail, and it improved in leaps and bounds over the period I was shuttling between London and Liverpool. Also Southern, generally, provides a better service than its predecessor. South Eastern, on the other hand, is not so good. What I don't know, but seems to me the case, is that although passenger numbers have increased, I am doubtful if the total operating cost of the railway per passenger mile has fallen, and whether the overall cost, in terms of distributed profits and government subsidy is, in fact, any lower than it was when nationalised. It seems an unassailable fact that fares have risen far faster than other costs, so the proportion of the total operating cost born by travellers (including commuters) is greater than under the nationalised railways, and it is supposed to be the case that the level of subsidy is falling year on year (so adding to the cost rise in fares). Nevertheless I, like you, am profoundly suspicious of a system that takes tax-payers' money and uses it to create private profit via subsidies. It just seems another recipe for manipulation of figures, by both sides, to generate either the subsidy, or the justification for the rate at which it is paid.

 

How's the weather?

[RogerC]

How's the weather?.....Like a lot of other things at the moment......unpleasant but there's nothing any of us can do about it.  :-D

No overly high winds as yet but quite strong gusts and building.....and fortunately only a very soggy 300ft long garden.  The worst we've had is about 3 inches or so of water round my garden workshop which, fortunately is on a concrete base 5 inches above ground level.  Overnight is supposed to get worse so maybe we will have another 'garden pond' in the morning.  :-D