| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by GBM at 12:07, 29th November 2025 |     |
We are told by every new Prime Minister/Chancellor/Government recently that things will be tough, but we must 'suck it up', pay more and work harder and longer for a few years. We should then start to see improvements.
Before we see any improvement, there's a change of Government/Prime Minister/Chancellor with a different outlook.
More taxes, etc.
Doesn't seem to matter who is in charge these days.
And don't get me started on the youngsters who are so aware of mental health issues these days, many go sick on leaving College, thus increasing our benefits bill.
This is no way takes away the issues for those with real health problems.
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by TaplowGreen at 10:10, 29th November 2025 | |
The very notion that you can tax a nation into prosperity is laughable
Except it's not funny. We have had years of governments that think exactly this
Except it's not funny. We have had years of governments that think exactly this
The notion that you can tax a nation into prosperity is an oversimplification. It has a corollary that you can cut taxes (and in practice also spending) to make a nation prosperous. Both are wrong as it is more nuanced.
Keynesian economics, which promotes public spending to boost the economy, is proven to work (Roosevelt's New Deal is a classic example). This relies on most of the money going into the pockets of ordinary people who spend most of it rather than keep it in the bank. It then gets recycled to other ordinary people. But if you go too far there is more demand than supply and you get inflation as we did in the 1970's.
If you take the corollary and cut taxes for the rich it generally goes into savings and doesn't get recycled. The theory of trickle down has been shown not to happen for the reasons stated above. The argument against this is that the wealthy will invest it in industry and that is good, except most people who save don't invest in shares and so it does not have that effect. Banks have not been too good at investing in business either which is why keeping the money in the bank doesn't work.
Where I would have issue with Rachel from accounts is keeping tax allowances stable. This means the amount of taxes paid by the ordinary person, who would otherwise spend it, will increase. In that sense you indeed cannot tax a nation into prosperity. But taxing those with so much money they don't recycle it into the economy can indeed make a contribution to making a nation prosperous if government uses that money well.
On the expenditure side there are the arguments about big and small government. If you cut both taxes and public services, but instead people have to pay for those services privately, they are no better of and many, especially the poor, will be worse off.
It is said that our productivity is low. This is partly a skilled labour shortage and partly an investment issue.
In my own industry (the water industry) we have an acute shortage of skilled professional engineers, at a time when investment is massively increasing to clean up our environment. I would suggest that student fees have not helped this, as civil engineering is generally a 4 year course. As a result most of the major engineering consultancies have offshored a lot of the detailed design abroad. This is money out of the economy. In the next year as more projects move into the build stage it will be a shortage of skilled labour to build these projects.
The number of working aged people who are not able to work due to illness is too high. Yet we have a vicious circle because those left in work are worked so hard that by the time they get near to retiring age they are burned out! A properly funded health service would go a long way to help with this. For this of course we need more skilled doctors and nurses etc. But these people are some of the most overworked! Raising the retirement age is unpopular, I am blessed that despite my infirmities the nature of my work means I am still able to work part time beyond retirement age and enjoy it. If my job involved manual labour I would not be able to do that. If I was still working in the demanding job I had when it was full time I would have fully retired by now.
Industry also wants good transport links and a decent power grid. People and industry need water whether it is private or public investment in these utilities it still needs paying for (either taxes or increased charges) and governments have through regulators stifled this investment over the last 20 years through demands to keep down bills.
Which brings us back to transport. East West Rail is justified in government by allowing movement of labour from areas around Oxford and Cambridge where the housing market is highly priced and where water resources are limited (especially in Cambridge) to commute from places like Milton Keynes and Bedford. A better rail network is therefore positive for the economy.
Irrespective of Keynes, or their motivations, Labour demonstrably lied in their manifesto, and equally irrespective of "YeahbuttheTories", I think we were all led to believe by Starmer that we could expect better than that.
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by ellendune at 09:38, 29th November 2025 | |
The very notion that you can tax a nation into prosperity is laughable
Except it's not funny. We have had years of governments that think exactly this
Except it's not funny. We have had years of governments that think exactly this
The notion that you can tax a nation into prosperity is an oversimplification. It has a corollary that you can cut taxes (and in practice also spending) to make a nation prosperous. Both are wrong as it is more nuanced.
Keynesian economics, which promotes public spending to boost the economy, is proven to work (Roosevelt's New Deal is a classic example). This relies on most of the money going into the pockets of ordinary people who spend most of it rather than keep it in the bank. It then gets recycled to other ordinary people. But if you go too far there is more demand than supply and you get inflation as we did in the 1970's.
If you take the corollary and cut taxes for the rich it generally goes into savings and doesn't get recycled. The theory of trickle down has been shown not to happen for the reasons stated above. The argument against this is that the wealthy will invest it in industry and that is good, except most people who save don't invest in shares and so it does not have that effect. Banks have not been too good at investing in business either which is why keeping the money in the bank doesn't work.
Where I would have issue with Rachel from accounts is keeping tax allowances stable. This means the amount of taxes paid by the ordinary person, who would otherwise spend it, will increase. In that sense you indeed cannot tax a nation into prosperity. But taxing those with so much money they don't recycle it into the economy can indeed make a contribution to making a nation prosperous if government uses that money well.
On the expenditure side there are the arguments about big and small government. If you cut both taxes and public services, but instead people have to pay for those services privately, they are no better of and many, especially the poor, will be worse off.
It is said that our productivity is low. This is partly a skilled labour shortage and partly an investment issue.
In my own industry (the water industry) we have an acute shortage of skilled professional engineers, at a time when investment is massively increasing to clean up our environment. I would suggest that student fees have not helped this, as civil engineering is generally a 4 year course. As a result most of the major engineering consultancies have offshored a lot of the detailed design abroad. This is money out of the economy. In the next year as more projects move into the build stage it will be a shortage of skilled labour to build these projects.
The number of working aged people who are not able to work due to illness is too high. Yet we have a vicious circle because those left in work are worked so hard that by the time they get near to retiring age they are burned out! A properly funded health service would go a long way to help with this. For this of course we need more skilled doctors and nurses etc. But these people are some of the most overworked! Raising the retirement age is unpopular, I am blessed that despite my infirmities the nature of my work means I am still able to work part time beyond retirement age and enjoy it. If my job involved manual labour I would not be able to do that. If I was still working in the demanding job I had when it was full time I would have fully retired by now.
Industry also wants good transport links and a decent power grid. People and industry need water whether it is private or public investment in these utilities it still needs paying for (either taxes or increased charges) and governments have through regulators stifled this investment over the last 20 years through demands to keep down bills.
Which brings us back to transport. East West Rail is justified in government by allowing movement of labour from areas around Oxford and Cambridge where the housing market is highly priced and where water resources are limited (especially in Cambridge) to commute from places like Milton Keynes and Bedford. A better rail network is therefore positive for the economy.
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 04:42, 29th November 2025 | |
Rachel from Accounts is having a bad day in the office: from the BBC, see 'Reeves on brink' and 'Chancer of the Exchequer'
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by Witham Bobby at 09:42, 10th November 2025 | |
The very notion that you can tax a nation into prosperity is laughable
Except it's not funny. We have had years of governments that think exactly this
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 13:35, 9th November 2025 | |
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by ChrisB at 12:37, 9th November 2025 | |
I meant that you wouldn't have called a male Chancellor of the Exchequer 'Bob from accounts'.....
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 12:24, 9th November 2025 | |
Not from me.
I think Rachel Reeves is in an unenviable position, with the press and pressure groups writing her Budget speech for her, before she has a chance to reply.
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by ChrisB at 11:46, 9th November 2025 | |
Slightly misogynistic?
| Re: Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 23:17, 7th November 2025 | |
It's encouraging to see that they have sent that to Rachel from Accounts.
(Thanks, TaplowGreen: I personally found that nomenclature very funny.
)| Suggestions from Campaign for Better Transport for the budget Posted by grahame at 17:03, 7th November 2025 | |
Shared with me by the chair of the Melksham Environment Group, by email to her from the Campaign for Better Transport
Also at https://bettertransport.org.uk/blog/will-the-budget-tackle-transport-poverty/
A Budget for public transport
Hello Shirley
After 14 years of fuel duty freezes and a five-year fuel duty cut, transport costs are still keeping five million people below the poverty line. Doggedly clinging to the cut in fuel duty - which has primary benefitted richer households and fuel retailers - whilst simultaneously prioritising road investment will not change this. That's why we have written to the Chancellor to urge her to use the forthcoming Budget to rebalance transport taxation and prioritise public transport to help hard-pressed households and provide the sustainable economic growth we need.
Ending the fuel duty cut
With the cost of petrol and diesel now much lower than when the "temporary" 5p fuel duty cut was introduced five years ago, allowing the cut to expire would recoup £2.6 billion a year in lost revenue. Reinstating the annual inflation-linked fuel duty rise would raise a further £1.6 billion in the first year alone. The impact on fuel bills for individuals would not be large, and the additional income could be invested in infrastructure improvements and public services to the benefit of millions of households.
Introducing a per-mile charge for electric vehicles
As more people switch to electric vehicles, revenue from fuel duty will plummet. The Chancellor should set out a process and timetable for introducing a simple, per-mile charge for EVs. This would be fair, and avoid a looming budget black hole. The charge should be low, so that it's still cheaper to drive a cleaner car.
Closing the aviation loophole
The Chancellor could also choose to close the loophole that provides airlines with tax-free fuel by introducing a kerosene tax at 33p a litre. Even after excluding 'lifeline flights' (those from remote islands in the UK to the mainland), this new tax would still raise £594 million per annum for the exchequer. Introducing a new ‘super’ rate of Air Passenger Duty – set at ten times the current higher rate – for all private jet passengers and charging VAT on all private jet flights would raise a further £1.5 billion to £2 billion a year.
Prioritising public transport
Public transport investment brings a much higher return than investment in roads. Boosting investment in local bus services and fare concessions would help tackle transport poverty and improve people's life chances. Cancelling the 2026 rail fare increase and speeding up fares and ticketing reforms would make trains more affordable and encourage more people to use them. We also want to see the Government commit to key rail infrastructure improvements.
With every Budget there are hard decisions to be made. The politics of increasing fuel duty are not easy, but nor are any of the other fiscal choices available to the Government. Transport investment is essential to economic growth, but not all transport investment is equal. Prioritising public transport investment will ensure we get sustainable economic growth which doesn't cost the earth.
Goodbye till next time
Silviya Barrett, Director of Policy & Campaigns
Campaign for Better Transport
Hello Shirley
After 14 years of fuel duty freezes and a five-year fuel duty cut, transport costs are still keeping five million people below the poverty line. Doggedly clinging to the cut in fuel duty - which has primary benefitted richer households and fuel retailers - whilst simultaneously prioritising road investment will not change this. That's why we have written to the Chancellor to urge her to use the forthcoming Budget to rebalance transport taxation and prioritise public transport to help hard-pressed households and provide the sustainable economic growth we need.
Ending the fuel duty cut
With the cost of petrol and diesel now much lower than when the "temporary" 5p fuel duty cut was introduced five years ago, allowing the cut to expire would recoup £2.6 billion a year in lost revenue. Reinstating the annual inflation-linked fuel duty rise would raise a further £1.6 billion in the first year alone. The impact on fuel bills for individuals would not be large, and the additional income could be invested in infrastructure improvements and public services to the benefit of millions of households.
Introducing a per-mile charge for electric vehicles
As more people switch to electric vehicles, revenue from fuel duty will plummet. The Chancellor should set out a process and timetable for introducing a simple, per-mile charge for EVs. This would be fair, and avoid a looming budget black hole. The charge should be low, so that it's still cheaper to drive a cleaner car.
Closing the aviation loophole
The Chancellor could also choose to close the loophole that provides airlines with tax-free fuel by introducing a kerosene tax at 33p a litre. Even after excluding 'lifeline flights' (those from remote islands in the UK to the mainland), this new tax would still raise £594 million per annum for the exchequer. Introducing a new ‘super’ rate of Air Passenger Duty – set at ten times the current higher rate – for all private jet passengers and charging VAT on all private jet flights would raise a further £1.5 billion to £2 billion a year.
Prioritising public transport
Public transport investment brings a much higher return than investment in roads. Boosting investment in local bus services and fare concessions would help tackle transport poverty and improve people's life chances. Cancelling the 2026 rail fare increase and speeding up fares and ticketing reforms would make trains more affordable and encourage more people to use them. We also want to see the Government commit to key rail infrastructure improvements.
With every Budget there are hard decisions to be made. The politics of increasing fuel duty are not easy, but nor are any of the other fiscal choices available to the Government. Transport investment is essential to economic growth, but not all transport investment is equal. Prioritising public transport investment will ensure we get sustainable economic growth which doesn't cost the earth.
Goodbye till next time
Silviya Barrett, Director of Policy & Campaigns
Campaign for Better Transport
