Dan Korski, one of the candidates for the London mayor elections from the Conservative Party, has vowed to end Sadiq Khan’s “attack on drivers” by unveiling a milieu of radical traffic changes, such as switching off red lights and ending segregated bike lanes, 20mph speed limits, ULEZ and low traffic neighbourhoods.
With motorists and other people criticising Khan’s divisive policies to prioritise dealing with the capital’s deteriorating air quality and climate change, the Tory hopeful has announced a radical shake-up of London’s roads should he be elected in next year’s mayoral elections in May.
In an exclusive interview with The Sun, Korski said that he would explore switching off red lights between 10pm and 7am. Instead, amber flashing lights managed by sensors would “ease the flow of traffic”, and make sure that drivers are not forced to wait at deserted junctions.
The former No.10 aide also said that he would allow motorists and cyclists to share lanes on routes where bike segregation has caused annoying congestion, as well as scrapping 20mph limits where there’s no obvious reason for the restriction.
The mayoral hopeful also wants to dramatically reduce traffic control measures including no right turns and closed streets, where they don’t command local support.
> TfL to address safety concerns over drivers ignoring red lights at Bow Roundabout
Korski told The Sun: “Sadiq Khan’s transport policies, to London voters, appear irrational. Above all, it’s hard to see how they help the environment.
“They’re driving motorists around the bend and, most counterintuitively, turning some people against environmentalism. All my changes will be made with community input.”
Korski, along with some other frontrunners from the Conservative party, has already sworn to put an end to Khan’s ULEZ expansion due in August. Another candidate, Paul Scully, said that that he will “turn off all those new cameras” on his first day, if he were to get elected.
Amsterdam’s traffic light experiments
Although Korski’s plan sounds outlandish and stems out of aiding drivers cutting down their journey times as much as possible, the cycling-friendly Netherlands tried switching off red lights — not just to help drivers, but cyclists.
Until 2016, one of the Dutch capital’s busiest intersections at Sarphatistraat-Alexanderplein was controlled by traffic lights, with cyclists, the predominant users in Amsterdam as in a lot of Dutch cities, had longer wait times.
.jpg)
However in that case, the test was part of a larger mobility strategy across the city to make more room for cyclists and pedestrians, meaning limiting access and space for private vehicles. The new setup forced people to engage with their surroundings: Instead of relying on traffic lights, they now relied on their own abilities and the cues of others.
Over the period of a year, it was seen that cyclists had become more aware of their surroundings and of other road users. In less than two weeks, the evolution was already observed on Alexanderplein.
> Cyclists in Paris allowed to ignore red traffic lights
Delay times were reduced and safety remained unaffected, showing that regulation can lead to responsible and alert road users. It was so successful that the pilot was extended and a few months later the lights were completely removed, and even led to the junction’s redesign.
However, in February this year, Amsterdam cyclists were greeted with traffic signs asking them to not jump red lights by showing a counter of how many cyclists waited at the red light and nudging them to do the same.
105 thoughts on “Tory London mayoral candidate plans to end Sadiq Khan’s “attack on drivers” by switching off red lights”
Well not much point
Well not much point commenting on the “reverse what the last incumbent did” populism initially discussed. (Just trust people to drive sensibly, let them get on with it – that’d sort the pollution too!)
There’s some troubling mention of “shared space” ideas. Like L-shaped cranks and odd-shaped chainrings the good idea fairy keeps hitting people with this one. Unfortunately it only “works” under two conditions:
a) where the different users are rather similar – particularly in terms of vulnerability – and
b) there are few people using the space anyway. If the weaker mode dominates the numbers it will feel safer for them – but be very inefficient for the other modes.
If motor vehicles are involved they quickly make it unpleasant for the rest – the “shared” part goes out of the window and we’ve just got a less formal road (why did we have marking and traffic lights originally? Ah). Apparently such spaces are particularly risky for those with visual impairments.
And a Cones Hotline. You know
And a Cones Hotline. You know it’s Common Sense.
Let’s have no rules for
Let’s have no rules for drivers, and give them all the space and priority.
Cos that’s worked really well for the last 7 decades, and ensured there is no pollution. And that’s how the Dutch enabled mass cycling.
Donyou remember Pickles
Donyou remember Pickles saying double yellows could be ignored “for a few minutes”, think of the congestion…
Is anyone else old enough to
Is anyone else old enough to remember when this would be considered a joke?
I don’t like running down the
I don’t like running down the denizens of my beloved hometown, but anyone who’s seen the absolute snarling shitshow that almost instantly arises in London as soon as a set of traffic lights fails would not have much faith that turning off the reds and relying on drivers’ (and cyclists’) good faith and common sense is really a good shout.
It is for certain times of
It is for certain times of day though – not all day. I have lived in cities where the lights flash amber during the night and it didn’t seem a problem. I don’t have any statistics for collisions etc – but it seemed perfectly easy to slow down, check all was clear and go through the amber light.
Im not sure this is really a
Im not sure this is really a story. There are 7 Tory candidates – a mixed bag of SPADs and Assembly members and 1 MP. All of who are happy to spout trash as they know the 2024 Mayoral election is a long shot bar Khan digging up the Queen.
Not sure if it’s still the
Not sure if it’s still the case, but the last time I drove in Amsterdam, many traffic lights flashed amber during the evening/night-time, and it seemed to work well. What is the point of stopping and waiting at a red light at 2am if there’s no other traffic around? But then I think they have a much better standard of driving over there than we have in the UK.
If there really is “no other
If there really is “no other traffic”, why do the control systems not change the lights in favour of the solitary approaching car? There are enough sensor loops buried in the road.
Most newer ones will but a
Most newer ones will but a lot of the older lights just cycle through a set routine.
Setting those to flash amber (where appropriate) would probably be a lot easier than installing all the sensors etc
If your problem is “lights
If your problem is “lights are not smart” the answer may not be “no lights” – even though this is a lot cheaper…
The not very smart lights were there not just ensure a fair go at priority for each direction, but because it turns out that a proportion of licenced drivers do not apply the expected care when driving and where traffic crosses this leads to collisions.
A reduced volume of traffic may make collisions less frequent but it seems that even adding darkness doesn’t prompt an improvement in the quality of care in observation.
If “something must be done” AND “mustn’t cost very much” (often the source of more problems) perhaps shortening some of the cycle times – adjusted for expected main traffic flow etc?
Sriracha wrote:
God please don’t advocate for this, in my experience they have a lot of difficulty installing any type of sensor which reliably detects cyclists, I don’t think I need to be accompanied by a motorist to safely negotiate a junction. if anything being made to wait until a car turns up so we can go through together makes things less safe.
wycombewheeler wrote:
God please don’t advocate for this, in my experience they have a lot of difficulty installing any type of sensor which reliably detects cyclists, I don’t think I need to be accompanied by a motorist to safely negotiate a junction. if anything being made to wait until a car turns up so we can go through together makes things less safe.— Sriracha
Well if drivers are only looking for other drivers maybe that would help SMIDSY… Perhaps a “red car act” where every cyclist needs to be preceeded by a red car? 😉
If the problem is detectors which don’t detect bikes surely the answer is detectors which do? The Dutch seem to manage it…
You’re also much less likely
You’re also much less likely to meet a cyclist on the road and even a bit less at a junction which might have lights – right turns generally don’t involve the cyclist entering the road at all where there is a cycle track (or even needing to stop).
I think the standard of driving (e.g. adhering to the rules, looking where you’re going) probably isn’t *much* different. Humans, see – and there are still people are being killed and injured on the roads and it seems (various stats here and here, / analysis here in Dutch) that the proportion of cyclists killed by drivers is going up.
Apparently it’s better than the UK for pedestrians though.
I would expect the average speed to be lower and motorists to be much more aware of a) what speed they should be going and b) where they are likely to interact with vulnerable road users. That is mostly down to engineering, though there’s a good training system in place.
Our local Tories tried a
Our local Tories tried a similar approach in the local elections; I think the term used post-election was ‘wiped-out’.
The last part of the article
The last part of the article that was missed off did say:
a No10 spokesperson said: “As you would expect I don’t think this is something the Department for Transport are working on, given the impact it would have on traffic and road safety.”
Is there even any sort of quality bar to announcing you’re going to try and be the Conservative Mayoral candidate these days?
Interestingly as I dug in a bit more to the background of Mr Korski it turns out he was born in the bike friendly city of Copenhagen and moved to London in 1997. He also said last week in the Jewish Chronicle that he would ” increase police numbers and to dedicate resources to solving crimes that were not seen as a priority at present.
“Laptops are stolen and police don’t care, bikes are taken all the time,”
So it looks like he’s running on a ticket where we take our chances in deregulated traffic but at least our bikes won’t possibly get nicked as often.
muhasib wrote:
It’s just noise. Bikes and laptops will get nicked regardless. Just because he says this it doesn’t mean he actually cares; and even if he does care he can’t do much about it without spending vast sums of money (if he’s able to).
And it seems he doesn’t care about air pollution that ” is the largest environmental risk to public health” [BMJ and many others], that the pollution – not just from exhaust fumes – road congestion and the deaths and injuries caused by RTCs all cost many millions and blight countless lives. He’s just appealling to selfish instincts.
muhasib wrote:
No. Boris.
There’s a certain amount of
There’s a certain amount of merit in turning off some traffic lights – there’s a major roundabout in Crawley, with traffic lights at every junction, and it’s fairly slow going, at most times of day.
On several occasions, the lights failed, and the traffic just flowed – much like a lot of other roundabouts.
Nobody of influence seemed to notice, so the lights remain.
The contrary also applies – try turning right onto Westerham high street, approaching from Biggin Hill, and you could be in for a significant wait – traffic lights would help in this situation (especially as it’s a bus route) but it hasn’t happened.
Like so much in life, there needs to be a balanced approach, but folks seem to be too polarised and go straight for the all or nothing option.
belugabob wrote:
Sounds like an “improve it for everyone” approach is needed. (In your example maybe Turbo roundabouts combined with grade- separated cycle paths). But *nothing* changes unless you fix it for vulnerable road users because everyone keeps on driving.
chrisonatrike wrote:
This
chrisonatrike wrote:
Definitely, as the roundabout in question is poorly provisioned for cyclists, when the traffic lights are working – crossing most of the arms of the roundabout, as a pedestrian or cyclist, involves three sets of toucan crossings.
My point was that lights are usually the source of delays, but I agree that Turbo roundabouts would be a better improvement for everybody.
Hold on, A lot of these
Hold on, A lot of these initiatives were not Khan’s but Boris Johnson’s ideas. The push for more cycling infrastructure started with Ken Livingstone but Boris was the one who poured the most money into it.
So to now have a Conservative candidate try and undo everything their last mayor did seems a bit backward.
He also needs to remind himself that the city and the nation have ever stricter CO2 and health targets they need to hit. Creating a situation where youre allowing more of the thing that youre trying to combat is crazy.
Sure there may be more electric cars but not enough to make a sizeable dent in the air pollution. And then that does little to help with the health of the citizens who commute.
But then, when was the last time a tory made any sense?
Yes, but in a post truth
Yes, but in a post truth world, the Tories focus on populist claims.
Off the back wrote:
Not in my lifetime, so at least 71 years.
eburtthebike wrote:
this is clearly not true
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/05/john-major-nhs-risk-brexit-pythons-johnson-and-gove
John Major is a tory
the following statement is hard to argue against “The NHS would be as safe as a pet hamster in the presence of a hungry python if Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith rose to power following Brexit, Sir John Major has said”
This occured within the last 71 years
Look also for any number of statements by Major about the Johnson [mis]administration.
However a very long retired
However a very long retired one, who no longer has to pretend for the ‘bastards’ he tried to lead.
But he’s a candidate though –
But he’s a candidate though – his only job is to get elected, not to make sense, or make the world better! Indeed he doesn’t even need to get in; his only job is to *get ahead*! Looking good to the powerful folks in / around the party by using “the right language” won’t harm his career.
The sad part is that rhetoric of the “enough of this war on the hard-pressed motorist” kind is still seen as a vote-winner – and not just by the Conservatives…
Off the back wrote:
I thought that Conservatism was all about moving backwards and going back to a perceived golden age of Victorian standards.
A man who should be rewarded
A man who should be rewarded with a strictly limited personal revocation of the Acts of Toleration, he should live in the reality of the past.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Well, I learned something today. I didn’t know that Rees-Mogg was an enthusiastic Catholic, but with a quick search, I can see him describing abortion rights as a “cult of death” (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rees-mogg-abortion-death-cult-b2235286.html).
Ironic really as I consider christianity to be a death cult as they make quite a big deal about the death of Jesus.
hawkinspeter wrote:
He got better though…
Apparently some Spanish
Apparently some Spanish missionaries to mesoamerica were disturbed by the ready parallels the some locals drew between their indigenous cults of sacrifice and the newly introduced religion.
Try and keep religion out of
Try and keep religion out of a cycling website comment section..
Say something ike that to a
Say something ike that to a Muslim, I dare you…
Nah, didn’t think so.
Roulereo wrote:
Which Muslim politician goes around referring to abortion as a “cult of death”?
And besides, I’m not aware that Islam fixates heavily on the nature of Muhammad’s death.
When was the last time a Tory
When was the last time a Tory made sense? Thursday, 1st May 1997
Try and keep politics out of
Try and keep politics out of a cycling website comment section..
grOg wrote:
A rather odd statement, given that the government spend all our money on building more roads and a pittance on cycling. The state of our roads and the dangers of cycling are the result of politics.
You do realise that this is
You do realise that this is an article about the views of someone hoping to represent a political party in the mayoralty of the capital city of the UK, a position directly elected by the largest electorate in the country.
Views that are about cycle provision.
This is a UK site, if you don
This is a UK site, if you don’t like it, stick to one in Australia or run your own website.
Because politics never has and never will have any impact on cycling and cycling provision.
Hirsute wrote:
Ooo – sarcasm! Nice.
My theory that the tories are
My theory that the tories are deliberately trying to lose as badly as possible, in the biggest landslide ever seen in the UK, would appear to be gaining credence.
I think they’ll prefer being
I think they’ll prefer being in opposition now – they can spread all sorts of
sh!tmisinformation, and nobody will (or will even pretend to) hold them to account.And they can still blame everything on Labour (as they do now… remind me, who has been in power for the last thirteen years?).
People wonder why Londoners
People wonder why Londoners keep voting for Sadiq Khan, especially with the ridiculous Silvertown tunnel construction and zero plans for any cycling crossings across the thames, east of Tower bridge. The Tories keep putting up alternatives such as this. What choice do we have?
If they want to experiment
If they want to experiment with turning off traffic lights at certain times, then they should also have a much stricter speeding policy at those times with proper enforcement. By all means sail through empty junctions, but stick to the speed limits.
Korski won’t win. The vast
Korski won’t win. The vast majority of the public want quieter, healthier streets where they live. People like Korski listen to loud mouthed taxi drivers and believe them to be the voice of the common man, when they are simply loud mouthed taxi drivers.
Muddy Ford wrote:
I wish that were all, but… I used to think that but now I’d say “the vast majority of the public want quieter, healthier streets where they live BUT it’s pretty low on the things that animate them come elections. They’re much more likely to engage on issues directly concerning money for example. It’s easy to convince them that changes which may affect their routines are existential threats.”
Fortunately, most Londoners
Fortunately, most Londoners don’t own cars, those who do don’t tend to use them much, and opposition to the ULEZ is overstated.
http://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/140648/londoners-car-ownership-essential-new-research
Khan’s policies aren’t
Khan’s policies aren’t ‘divisive’, they’re supportive of the majority of Londoners who do not have access to a car but who suffer the consequences of those Londoners who insist on driving everywhere.
Besides, most of his policies are simply implementing policy decided by the Tories at national level. Sheesh.
matthewn5 wrote:
It’s a regular source of amusement to hear the right frothing about how divisive and hated Mr Khan is and then ask them if that’s the case why has he been elected Mayor of London twice and is on course to win a third term in 2024.
Or, indeed, if they’ve read
Or, indeed, if they’ve read the Conservatives 2019 manifesto.
Rendel Harris wrote:
One could say the same about Brexit. If it’s so awful, how come the majority voted for it?
Just because Mr Khan is the preferred option does not necessarily mean he’s a good option.
The conservatives set the bar low in 2016 and even lower in 2021.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Ooo – ooo – I know, sir!: was it because they were lied to?
(edit: and didn’t really understand the question)
I think it’s fair to say that
I think it’s fair to say that Brexit is turning out to be the complete disaster that was derided as project fear. People voted for it because they were lied to, pure and simple. And know it’s becoming apparent to most people that it’s gone wrong. Even Nigel Farage says it’s been a disaster.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Except Farage is following the line of “Brexit has been a disaster. But it’s only been a disaster because it hasn’t been done properly.” He’s still not accepting that the concept of Brexit has been a complete train-wreck.
brooksby wrote:
People voted for Brexit because they were promised a whole lot of mutually exclusive things. Farage says Brexit hasn’t been done properly because (despite three PMs having a go – I’m not including Truss) the government hasn’t been able to deliver mutually exclusive things.
I certainly don’t want to add
I certainly don’t want to add to the volumes of analysis on why people, or certain groups, voted for Brexit.
I do note that concerns about “can’t get the staff” / “wages are too low”, “too many / not enough houses” and “immigration” were mentioned. People still seem to have very strong views on the same issues. So much so that both Westminster parties likely to be running the show next time are making various aspects of this a key part of their chat.
I’m not sure it was just the promises that were at fault.
Just seen that thankfully we
Just seen that thankfully we have totally got control of our borders:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
Perhaps it’s a “nice problem to have” – however bad some aspects of the UK may seem LOTS of other people think it’s a better bet than where they are. Or maybe our advertising is just world-beating?
I’m not saying that these concerns are necessarily spurious BTW or unjustified / undesirable. It’s just that many people seem to want things which it’s hard to see will work in combination.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I don’t see why immigration is such an issue. Certainly our agricultural industries rely on seasonal staff and they’re most often poorly paid immigrants. It’d be nice to have them properly compensated which would allow native workers to help with the fruit picking etc. but then we’re going to see an increase in food prices. Maybe that’s inevitable as we have relatively cheap food compared to a lot of places, but that’s going to hit some people really hard. I still think that ultimately some kind of universal basic income is required to deal with the cost of living properly, but that always seems unpopular despite some encouraging trials around the world (which are often cut short before their benefits can be properly realised).
hawkinspeter wrote:
all these other costs hit hard because we are spending so much on housing costs, either in inflated rent or high property prices. Meanwhile the property owners* keep gaining wealth at the expense of everyone else.
*owners of multiple properties acting as landlords, not people who own their own homes. Homeowners gain no benefit from increasing house prices.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Housing costs are not an easy thing to fix.
Obviously, we can blame Thatcher for a large part of it: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/26/right-to-buy-margaret-thatcher-david-cameron-housing-crisis
The problem is that as the prices rise, it becomes more attractive as a way of earning profit from capital and so a huge amount of capital is dumped into the housing market which only serves to further increase prices and push home ownership out of most people’s reach. Combine that with a lot of demand (it’s not like people have much of a choice between living somewhere or on the streets) and it’s not clear that prices will ever lower significantly. Even worse is that schemes to help people buy houses also serves to keep the prices propped up and puts more money into the hands of developers and landlords (or parasites as I like to think of them).
The main problem people have
The main problem people have with immigration is that it can occur much faster than the necessary increases in public services.
When you have net migration running at half a million a year it takes multiple decades for school, NHS and housing capacity to catch up.
Invariably this leads to increased prices in terms of housing and decreased quality in terms of public services.
We’re currently at the start of a demographic bulge entering secondary school, this bulge was secondary to Blair’s immigration policies. Despite having had over a decade to prepare there will still be far more pressure on secondary school places for the next decade or so.
Rich_cb wrote:
To my mind, that’s more of an issue with proper scaling of public services as immigrants are likely to be paying taxes etc. and thus adding to the economy. I did a brief search on figures and found out that we recently had more deaths than births (by a small margin) for the first time in ages – possibly a Covid influence but also likely that young people are less likely to feel financially stable enough for planned pregnancies.
But yes, I can see how people feel that public services are rapidly declining and thus don’t want any further pressure on the system.
Well perhaps those of us past
Well perhaps those of us past, say, forty could take it upon ourselves to quit living soonest? That would leave more space (houses, jobs, doctor’s appointments) for younger people. It would massively ease the burden on health and social services – especially if you didn’t lower the pension age!
It’s almost impossible to
It’s almost impossible to scale public services that fast though.
It takes 15 years minimum to train an NHS consultant.
If a large increase in immigration suddenly drives a similarly large increase in demand for maternity services (as it did about 15 years ago) how can you respond quickly?
Increasing hospital capacity and training staff takes a long time.
I’m not sure what the figure is now but a few years ago I read that you had to earn >35k per year to be a net contributor to the Exchequer so for anyone earning less than about 40k the extra pressure on public services and housing probably doesn’t justify the small net increase in tax revenue.
Birth rates are plummeting globally, within a generation the global population will start to fall and the current issue of ‘too much’ immigration will likely reverse.
Rich_cb wrote:
You do know that large numbers of NHS consultants are immigrants who trained elsewhere, right?
We’ve been running worldwide
We’ve been running worldwide recruitment campaigns for decades (which in itself has been ethically dubious IMO). We’re still woefully short of consultants in most specialities.
Public services cannot scale up their capacity anywhere near fast enough to deal with the increased demand caused by net migration in the 100s of thousands.
Rich_cb wrote:
Immigration does bring increased demand – but it also brings increased supply of skills and labour. It’s a solution as well as a problem.
It’s a complex, multi-faceted issue – but you could argue the bottom line is that this latest net migration represents about 1% population increase in a year. And while they won’t be spread evenly acoss places or in their demand for services, it doesn’t seem like it should be an impossible challenge in most cases.
There are lots of other factors which are probably more important in the quality of many public services too: certainly under-investment in some, existing workers leaving (early retirement, ill health, poor pay/conditions, etc.) or just not joining. Housing (“the first of the social services”, according to Churchill) is a huge issue too – but you can’t accuse successive governments of doing their best to improve that situation. Quite the reverse.
And there’s the overarching issue of the UK’s unusually poor record of productivity growth. Tackling that would ease a lot of chronic problems – but again, there’s not much effort in that direction.
The Daily Mail et al love
The Daily Mail et al love those figures, citing them as evidence of “something for nothing” Britain. In fact they are fairly meaningless as they ignore how much the work of people on low wages contributes to the incomes of those on very high wages who pay more tax.
I’m guessing you have some
I’m guessing you have some figures to back that up?
It’s obviously not the case for all low paid workers though.
Especially when you consider that the government have been pretty consistently spending more than they raise in tax for decades (a handful of years of surplus since the 1970s IIRC).
Rich_cb wrote:
Sealion! No, just simple common sense. Say you own a business which employs 1000 people earning £12,000 a year, so none of them pays tax. Now let’s say your business makes you a profit of £10 million a year so you pay roughly £4.7 million in tax. Are you the only person of the 1001 who’s paying your way? The oft-touted (by the rich) concept that the rich subsidise the workers and the workers don’t pay their own way is a pernicious one in that it completely ignores the extent to which the workers subsidise the rich by providing them with the profits derived from their work.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Sealion! No, just simple common sense. Say you own a business which employs 1000 people earning £12,000 a year, so none of them pays tax. Now let’s say your business makes you a profit of £10 million a year so you pay roughly £4.7 million in tax. Are you the only person of the 1001 who’s paying your way? The oft-touted (by the rich) concept that the rich subsidise the workers and the workers don’t pay their own way is a pernicious one in that it completely ignores the extent to which the workers subsidise the rich by providing them with the profits derived from their work.— Rich_cb
In that specific hypothetical example, the 1000 people on £12k pa will be in receipt of universal credit, council tax support, and other top up benefits from the government which will mostly likely be more than £4700 each, wiping out the £4.7m to the exchequer paid by the business owner. The goverment/tax payers are effectively subsidising the business.
mark1a wrote:
Okay, I’ll change the example to they all earn £30,000 a year, so they will be paying about £6000 in tax and national insurance as well as the contribution they are making to their employer’s profits and receiving no benefits, but according to Rich’s figures they would still be a net loss to the Exchequer because the profits they make for their employer on which their employer pays tax are disregarded.
‘Benefit’ received from the
‘Benefit’ received from the government is not just cash although it is possible to recieve cash benefits on an income far above £30k.
The NHS, bin collections, schools etc all have a cash value too.
It’s possible to fudge a hypothetical situation together, where every employee earns exactly the right amount to balance out every penny in benefit they receive from the government and the company is hugely profitable, to make your assertion work.
The question remains; is this commonplace?
It’s not sealioning to ask you to back up your hypothetical scenario with some real world figures.
Rich_cb wrote:
Honestly old chap, when your “real world figures” amount to:
I’m not sure you’re in a position to demand authoritative fully audited figures from others. In any case, you have ignored my point, which is that there is more to contributing to the Exchequer than simply the tax one pays when one’s work makes profits for someone else who pays tax on said profits.
So that’s a no.
So that’s a no.
You’ve just made something up to fit your own argument.
No change there then.
What happens if the organisation you work for doesn’t make much/any profit? How does that fit your theory?
If you wanted more detail Rendel you just had to ask, I won’t even accuse you of sealioning:
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/State-dependency-FINAL.pdf.
Looks like the figure is now >£42k.
Ah, the well known unbiased
Ah, the well known unbiased thinktank Civitas, postal address Tufton Street along with so many other totally unbiased organisations.
You are, I assume deliberately, completely ignoring my point. I don’t dispute that many/most people do not contribute an equivalent amount in tax to the Exchequer as they receive in overall benefit from the government, but that does not take account of the profits and taxes generated by their work and so to class them as effectively a drag on the economy and to imply that only those on higher incomes are actually paying their own way is both unfair and inaccurate. I thought this sort of thinking had gone out with the Victorian era where the millowners paid a pittance, raked in enormous profits and then complained about the costs of poor relief for the “feckless” working classes who made them their profits. Obviously in Tufton Street that sort of thinking is alive and well.
I’ve hardly ignored your
I’ve hardly ignored your point Rendel.
I said that hypothetically it could work.
The counter point, which you have ignored, is that your imagined scenario doesn’t apply to all lower paid workers and you seem incapable of giving even an estimate as to how many workers it does apply to.
Attacking the source rather than the data as well. Poor show.
Rich_cb wrote:
Wrong again old chap, the data is not disputed, the interpretation of it by a notorious alt-right Tufton Street thinktank is.
Yet you’ve still failed to
Yet you’ve still failed to back up your own interpretation of the data with a single shred of evidence or even addressed any of the glaring flaws that I’ve pointed out.
Keep trying, I’m sure you’ll manage to put a coherent argument together one day.
Rich_cb wrote:
You do realise that you’ve made over a dozen posts on this thread with numerous lofty assertions about this, that and the other and the only supporting evidence you’ve produced is a link to a report from a notoriously biased rightist Tufton Street thinktank?
Anyone who has interacted with you on this site will know that there’s little point in answering your constant demands for evidence in any case, as like all sealions when presented with same you either query the source, demand more evidence or move the goalposts.
Enjoy your weekend, it’s lovely out, I’m going for a ride, you should too, it’s healthier than staying indoors poring over Google trying to find gotchas for use in online debates. Hugs.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Do you try to make yourself look foolish Rendel or is it just a happy accident?
If you don’t want to provide any evidence to back up your statement then it’s literally just ‘taking your word for it’.
Given that your ‘common sense’ example was thoroughly ripped to shreds as soon as you posted it and you’ve refused to even address any counterpoints it seems your word is about as reliable as your maths.
Seriously chap, go for a ride
Seriously chap, go for a ride in the sunshine, you’ll feel ever so much better. I’ve had a lovely gentle 60kms in the sunshine and it’s made me feel lovely and relaxed and ready to have a few beers and watch the rugby and the Giro with wife and mates rather than waste my time arguing with sealion bores like your good self. Heartily recommend it.
Back under your rock Rendel
Back under your rock Rendel (the self identified sealion).
You’ve thoroughly embarrassed yourself once again.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’ll say it again sweetheart, ride your bike, see your mates (if any), have a couple of beers and watch some cycling or rugby or other sport of your choice. It would do you so much good compared to the amount of time you spend obsessively pumping out your right wing pro-Brexit propaganda on here. Seriously, try it. xxx
The best part of your
The best part of your desperate attempt to have the last word is that every time you bump this thread more people get to see what a fool you made of yourself.
Keep it up Rendel, keep throwing in the playground insults too, the more people who see your hypocrisy the better.
Rich_cb wrote:
Bike. Mates. Sport. Beer. Seriously, it would help you a lot. Sleep well xxxxx
Keep it up Rendel.
Keep it up Rendel.
If you get the last word you’ll definitely save some face…
Rich_cb wrote:
Bless, you can have it hun, it’s clearly much more important to you than me. Sleep tight xxxx
I very much doubt that.
I very much doubt that.
Time will tell…
Don’t forget that poorly paid
Don’t forget that poorly paid employees will still be paying VAT, so benefits aren’t costing the treasury as much as you may think.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes, it’s a thorny problem. I think the answer lies with some long-term planning and anticipating increased deman. There’s also the principle of having some slack in systems so that there’s extra capacity for unforseeable events and it should also reduce the pressure on medical staff. However, there’s a modern trend of trying to have the capacity match demand as closely as possibly and whilst that has the benefit of reducing costs, it makes the system a lot more brittle.
Maybe we just have to wait for the lack of children to balance things out a bit, but then we’ll be stuck with an unproductive aging population without the young’uns to actually do stuff.
I agree it’s a very difficult
I agree it’s a very difficult issue.
Simply put, it’s impossible to accurately plan long term demand for public services without knowing what immigration levels will be.
A hard limit on immigration numbers would make the planning of public services easier and therefore remove most of the downsides of immigration but would also rob the economy of flexibility and hence likely lead to lower growth rates.
If current demographic trends continue and the AI/automation boom isn’t too destructive in terms of total jobs the we should see this question disappear from 2060 onwards.
The really interesting question is; what does human society looks like when both space and resources (the traditional drivers of conflict) become less scarce every year.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s the “accurate planning” that I think should be adjusted to instead plan for extra capacity so that public services have a good percentage of slack. With slack comes flexibility, so if you have council employed staff sat around with nothing to do in their particular area, they can be loaned to other areas to cover holidays/sickness etc. (However that does involve a slightly different employment model where employees become multi-skilled).
If we move to a post-scarcity society then we’re going to have to do some tinkering with the capitalist model as we’ve got a lot of businesses relying on continual expansion.
Extra capacity is great in
Extra capacity is great in theory but it inevitably means either higher taxes or cuts elsewhere.
I think capitalism will still work well in a post scarcity environment, the early days of the US are a.good example of how capitalism can thrive when land and resources are relatively plentiful.
Rich_cb wrote:
Extra capacity can bring about unexpected savings though as people have a bit of spare time to think about how they do their job and possible improvements. For an example, think of a road repair team. Currently, they’ll only be assigned a single pothole to be filled (this is a hypothetical, we know they don’t fill potholes), even though there’s probably a few scattered nearby. With a team that runs with a bit of slack, they can arrive at the site, spot the extra potholes and decide that they might as well fill them in too as it’ll save them going back to the same location in a few weeks time.
Post scarcity will cause a lot of upset to capital markets and the nature of stock trading. Fun things like negative interest rates etc.
The debt markets will be
The debt markets will be interesting over the next few decades to say the least.
Hmm… is that the example we
Hmm… is that the example we want to reach for? Certainly the capitalism thrived… but there are some native Americans here with notes on where that land and those plentiful resources came from. (Along with the immigrants who didn’t make it rich). “Manifest destiny” and (on another continent) “terra nullius” come to mind…
Anyway that’s *waaay* off topic of *goes back to check* ideas someone who probably won’t get elected is putting out. That not just reversing what the last guy did would be popular – but specifically “‘anti-driver’ things in a big urban area where many (most?) people don’t own cars are bad!”
OldRidgeback wrote:
If Nigel Farage says something, it immediately makes me think the opposite must be true. However, he may have accidentally said something correctly for once.
Worse to come now
Worse to come now
50 foot woman is in reserve.
OldRidgeback wrote:
But the fact remains: we did vote for it.
It seems very dismissive to throw away people’s opinions as “frothing” while we “froth” on about how much of a disaster Brexit is (which for the record I agree with).
My point is that it is perhaps unfair to dismiss stuff as “amusing froth” just because it doesn’t have the electorate behind it.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I didn’t bl00dy well vote for it
brooksby wrote:
I didn’t bl00dy well vote for it
— ShutTheFrontDawes
Neither did I, but that’s the problem with democracy, isn’t it.