Cycling England axed

shm_uk

TheStone wrote:

It would be great if we could have everything we wanted. Class sizes of 5, instant operations when we're sick, massive pensions to retire on, but the simple fact is that we can't afford it.

Cuts have to be made somewhere. I'm not for a second saying the tories will make the right cuts (if they make any real cuts at all), but cuts have to be made. The notion that we can keep borrowing (stealing from our children) under some failed keynesian economic notion disguised as socialism is madness.

If we can't afford things, we can't have them.

I'd start with housing benefit, NHS and pensions.....

+1

In the current state we're in, cuts are unarguably necessary.

As with any cost-cutting exercise, the first things to go are the non-essential items.

Personal opinions aside, teaching kids to cycle safely is way down the "what's essential?" list compared against all the other stuff that the govt pays for.

That's not to say Cycling England was not valuable, it's just not essential.

TheStone

alfablue wrote:

Some cuts are necessary, cuts that worsen things like health outcomes and the environment are a false economy, as at some stage the remedial measures that will become necessary will cost a whole lot more. It is also possible to resolve the deficit, in part, through growth, the fear is that if the cuts are savage and indiscriminate then the opportunity for any growth will slip through our fingers.

The structural part is the 85bn and is not part of the deficit which should disappear with growth. My feeling is that the measure of GDP while the govt are borrowing so much is all false. We're borrowing nearly 20% of GDP (which is really stealing GDP from the future), but only have growth below 1%. Is that really growth?

GDP is so dependant on debt (inflation of the money supply) vs a cost price index, that I'm not sure it's as valid in today's world.

Agree, sometimes cuts now prove more expensive in the future, but we're also in danger of giving one generation everything they want at the expense of future generations.

We're not fighting a war here. We're trying to cover up a decade of greed and incompetence. (that includes the govt and the banks and some individuals)

OldSkoolKona

Sadly my local council, Richmond in London, is more interested in giving free on street parking in already congested areas rather taking sustainable transport seriously. Expect more of the same in councils across the country :-(

http://www.richmondlcc.co.uk/2010/10/15 ... -richmond/

tailwindhome

OldSkoolKona wrote:

At the end of the day cuts have to be made and targeting those cycling "lycra louts" is an easy sell in the current "ending the war on the motorist" Daily Mail thread of transport policy of the new Government.

Its happening everywhere - in Northern Ireland they've announced that they're cutting the budget allocated to cycling facilites from £450,000 to £8,000 at the same time they're increasing the budget for roads from £149 million to £250 million...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/commu ... 76672.html

Have you any links to what facilities the £450,000 was earmarked for?

OldSkoolKona

TailWindHome wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

At the end of the day cuts have to be made and targeting those cycling "lycra louts" is an easy sell in the current "ending the war on the motorist" Daily Mail thread of transport policy of the new Government.

Its happening everywhere - in Northern Ireland they've announced that they're cutting the budget allocated to cycling facilites from £450,000 to £8,000 at the same time they're increasing the budget for roads from £149 million to £250 million...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/commu ... 76672.html

Have you any links to what facilities the £450,000 was earmarked for?

Afraid not TWH, Sustains or CTC in Norn Iron might have have the details of the projects.

plowmar

TheStone wrote

If we can't afford things, we can't have them.

I'd start with housing benefit, NHS and pensions.....

Really? Are you saying that we should get rid of The Health Service and State Pensions ?

Other contributors seem to be saying that the last government was to blame for our current situation, where it was the freeing of the controls on the banking sector re covering their debts by liquid assets that started everything off and this gathered pace in the early 90s,(Conservative) and continued by New Labour, nobody at that time saying stop.

The U.S. relaxed things even further.

Would that I were wrong but Cameron's idea that the private sector will pick up the un employed resulting from the cuts or filling holes created by them is a load of baloney. The Pr.S. will only do the profitable things, quite rightly that is what they are there to do, with fewer staff thereby leading to in increase in J.S.A. payments.

Keynesian economics indicates that in times of depression then the public sector is the only body able to spend to encourage a reversal. Private Sector won't as they understandably lack confidence in the future.

snailracer

SamWise72 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude that's 5 years. I don't think I can last that long!

Dude, didn't you VOTE for them?

As I understand it, the Lib-Con coalition is only one vote of no-confidence from being dissolved.

rml380z

snailracer wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude that's 5 years. I don't think I can last that long!

Dude, didn't you VOTE for them?

As I understand it, the Lib-Con coalition is only one vote of no-confidence from being dissolved.

This might be true, but if the LibDems roll over so easily on university tuition fees (something they strongly campaigned against for years), I can't see what will cause the vote of no-confidence...