Delicious LiveJournal Links for 11-16-2009

[andrewducker]

• Beyond Twitter - Woofer and Squeaker
  I'd read Woofer.
  (tags: twitter funny)
• Danish pupils use web in exams
  And about time too.
  (tags: education internet denmark computers learning)
• All of Britain's political parties are apparently behind high-speed rail in the UK.
  (tags: politics transport uk)
• Dutch approve per-kilometer tax for drivers
  Beginning in 2012 the law will abolish current road taxes and sales taxes for automobiles, cutting the cost of a new car by 25 percent, in favor of the pro-rated distance tax. Drivers will be charged 0.03 euros per kilometer (7 cents US per mile) in an attempt to reduce traffic jams fatal accidents and carbon emissions.
  (tags: law driving netherlands tax)
• The identity of Belle Du Jour is revealed
  (tags: prostitution blogging uk)

Comments

[sageautumn.livejournal.com]

•Dutch approve per-kilometer tax for drivers
The thought of this here rather fills me with horror*. Undoubtedly, this has to do with living in semi-rural Kentucky where any form of shopping is at least a half hour drive. Luckily, I do live near work--abt ten or fifteen miles... but a lot of people around here do not.

*mostly because it sounds like the sort of thing large cities would just love the idea of---the same sort of people that would say, "You shouldn't own a car**, you should take a bus!" ... umm... sure, where's the bus, though?

**A friend from Australia, upon hearing I got a new car, said "Congrats!! Now you're all independant and grown up!" ... I said, "Dude, I'm thirty-two in rural America. I've had a car since I was fifteen... I just got a different one. .. but thanks!!"

[matgb]

If implemented in the US, it'd almost certainly be a state tax, not a federal tax, so it'd be set at levels that wouldn't hurt rural drivers too much.

If it can be done effectively without intrusive monitoring, I'm theoretically in favour; in the UK, we have a massive cost PA just to own a car, including road taxes and insurance--if we could switch that towards usage, then light use becomes more cost effective, as it is I'm paying about £80 per month just to own the thing, so might as well use it constantly, which is the wrong incentive.

[call-waiting.livejournal.com]

I must admit I don't understand the reasons for taxation based on distance travelled. We already have a taxation mechanism which accurately encapsulates the pollution caused by a vehicle, and which rewards drivers for selecting a more fuel-efficient vehicle. It even tends to increase per-mile at peak hours, and approximates the wear and tear caused to the roads. That tax is simply fuel duty.

To the naive observer, it seems they should simply scrap vehicle tax and whack up fuel duty. While taxation per-mile achieves one of the goals, of getting people to cut out unnecessary journey, once a driver has decided that he *has* to nip down to the shops, what's to persuade him to take the Smart Car instead of the Hummer?

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

The idea behind is to try and build in an incentive to reduce congestion. Fuel costs are flat no matter wheere you live, but by charging people different amounts depending on where they drive, you can avoid penalising people who live in rural areas where there is probably no public transport and no congestion.

[call-waiting.livejournal.com]

Charging different rates based on location would seem to make sense -- reduce peak congestion and localised atmospheric pollution -- but the article only mentions a flat rate of €0.03 per km.

Driving a kilometre in the city is already generally more expensive than driving a kilometre in rural areas, due to traffic, traffic controls etc. I'm sure this effect isn't enough to normalise the system such that removal of vehicle duty will sufficiently compensate those in rural areas for the extra fuel costs, though!

Additionally, a non-constant tax rate would have to be carefully crafted in order to avoid encouraging people to travel further to save money: say, driving all the way round the city rather than straight through. If you happened to be driving a Prius or an Insight that wouldn't burn too much more fuel in city traffic, then the long way round could cause more pollution but still work out cheaper.

[the-gardener.livejournal.com]

All of Britain's political parties are apparently behind high-speed rail in the UK.

....but are almost certainly unwilling to spend the tens of billions of pounds that will be required to deliver it. (For the Tories, delete "almost" from that sentence.)

[matgb]

Can't speak for the other two, but the LibDem plans are fully costed and there's a strong commitment in there:
http://libdems.org.uk/transport.aspx
(and yes, the copy on the new site needs redoing, but the content is good)

It's up for a reaffirmation vote at the spring conference IIRC, with an update to the timetable and costing (a lot of the fully costed stuff was done pre financial collapse, but they've been pushing further investment as part of their preferred recovery route during it).

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Not that they will get elected. Also, how committed are they to this compared to say, PR, that in the event of a hung parliament where they held the balance of power this would be a real issue?

[matgb]

Define "get elected"--in over 200 of the 650 constituencies, they're in a better place than one or t'other of the big two, in others (including where I live), they've a better chance than the party that currently holds the seat, despite starting in third place.

Then we get onto: in the event of a hung parliament where they held the balance of power

D'you know the odds of this happening? Absolutely minimal, last time I ran the numbers (fairly recently), it was less than 5% of potential hung parliament results.

FPTP combined with the weird way the UK constituencies are organised combined with the massive accentuation of swing and split results that comes from it means that the odds of that happening, at all, are minimal.

It'd need both bigger parties to have broadly similar numbers of MPs and the Lib Dems having over 50, probably 100, seats.

So unlikely as to be an irrelevance--which is why I can't actually answer the question, as I don't know.

However, in the event of a coalition negotiation, what tends to happen is that, on all issues where there's disagreement, a compromise is reached--it's not, or is rarely "we get this issue you get that one".

Besides, if all parties are committed to it, there's very little negotiation needed, n'est ce pas?

(seriously, any serious psephologist that talks about 'balance of power' in the UK parliament needs to show me their numbers, it's so unlikely it's silly, but I will be very happy to be corrected)

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

"Get elected" could mean be in a position to actually implement their policies, whether by themselves or within a coalition; define define, if you want to play at deconstructionist games

200 out of 650 constituencies also means than in 450 other constituencies they aren't. Presumably there are also constituencies where they are not currently in third place but second, especially given what you say about the vagaries of FPTP etc.

I am not a serious psephologist; I don't even know, or care, what that word means. I hope that does not mean I am not permitted to have an opinion, however, as to deny holding opinions or voicing them to all but the serious psephologists would presumably not be very liberal or democractic?

[matgb]

"Get elected" could mean be in a position to actually implement their policies, whether by themselves or within a coalition

Is actually a pretty good answer. And one I'll happily use. The reason for my reaction is that, 9/10 times sentiments such as "Lib Dems can't win" it's used by someone either dismissing them (us) as an irrelevance or unaware that in large chunks of the country, they really are a decent option.

200 out of 650 constituencies also means than in 450 other constituencies they aren't. Presumably there are also constituencies where they are not currently in third place but second, especially given what you say about the vagaries of FPTP etc.

For the latter, yes, that's included in my rough 200 number, if in 1st or 2nd, I count them, if in 3rd, I treat on a case-by-case basis (so where I live now they can win, but just up the road they can't). For the former, true, but the national media regularly paints it as a Tory vs Labour fight, ignoring all others, when in much of the country it's Tory vs Lib Dem, or Lib Dem vs Labour. If you grow up in an area where, for example, Labour never keep their deposit, it can be frustrating when people try and tell you voting Lib Dem is wasted--nationally that's only partially true, but where I grew up it wasn't.

And no, wasn't trying to dismiss your opinio, sorry if that came across that way. "Psephologist" is someone who studies elections and results--people who study history get to be historians, but I'm not a politician.

The point being that the media like to keep asking the "who would they go for in a balance of power" question, whereas the reality is the question is a waste of time, it's so unlikely to happen that the strategists think about more serious stuff.

Like I said, apologies, I'm tired, I've been in meetings all evening and I was trying to give a friendly answer, while explaining why the question frustrates, not trying to dismiss you, just, well, unable to answer because it's a very unlikely option.

But, like I said, if all the parties are committed to it, it gives them power in a coalition to make it happen.