Thank you to all who have contributed and helped with the editing, rewording, and putting it all into proper English.
I'll post a proposed letter below which will go off in a day or so.
HJ/Martyn: If you are happy for this to be sent from the Backroom please say so. Without any comment it will have to be assumed that you are not happy as such and therefore the impact will be lost.
In case HJ does not give this his blessing, may I suggest any Backroomers who DO wish to be associated with this please email me. I suggest we have to use proper names and not internet nicks. Alternatively a post on the site with the required info will suffice.
Here goes. I'm sure the formatting will go to pot.
Dear Jimmy Young
May we propose the following questions for your forthcoming interview with Stephen Byers. We are a group who regularly correspond on motoring matters and have put together these questions to represent some of the key issues which concern us as motorists and voters.
They are presented under 4 key topics, and comprise a short introduction followed by a number of potential questions on the topic.
We trust they will be of value for your programme
Regards
Why can?t he drive? Ministerial travel
Most of your personal and business travel appears to consist of VIP travel on public transport or chauffeur driven ministerial cars and considering, in particular, your own failure to hold a driving licence; it is considered that you are demonstrably out of touch with the transport needs and issues of almost the whole population which elected you.
i) Have you any idea what the real situation is like for the general public in terms of motoring costs and hold ups for drivers, or the alternatives of inadequate and unreliable public transport.
ii) Have you ever discussed these matters with your constituents?
iii) Do you intend to correct the situation that you are out of touch, and are perceived to be so by the public? How do you intend to correct this and in what time scale?
iv) It is recognised that there will be security and scheduling issues which dictate that use of the ministerial car is the optimal solution. Even so, why does the Government not levy a taxable benefit in kind upon Ministers who use Government provided transport in the execution of their official, political and private business, just as it does for other drivers who could not undertake their jobs in an efficient manner without use of a car and do not have the Minister?s block exemption from benefit in kind tax.
Government Policy
A steady run down of public transport has resulted in the motor car being, for the majority, the only viable method of personal mobility, especially in rural areas. The Government?s own statistics show that over 80% of mileage travelled per person per year uses private road transport as opposed to all other methods including walking and air travel.
i) Why is the Government unable to accept this situation, and is seemingly bent on forcing people out of their cars and onto inadequate public transport?
ii) Is the Minister aware that the voting public views this as a serious attack on personal mobility?
iii) What is the Government?s fundamental objection to the motor car? The private car which provides the majority of the population with the optimal means of travelling to employment, supporting family life and social needs which are impossible to achieve on public transport.
iv) Considering the Government?s own statistics clearly show the situation why do you plan "predict and provide" facilities for air travel but refuse to do the same for road transport. Is this because "Roads" is a junior ministerial position, despite the fact that road taxes greatly outweigh the sum of road transport investment and public transport subsidy.
Education
There is considerable concern among the electorate that the Government favours a policy of legislation and punishment for drivers, and benefits from the income fines from initiatives like speed cameras provide. This approach appears to ignore the benefits of driver education to improve standards, which would have much greater and lasting benefits.
i) Is the Minister aware there is a strong opinion that education for road users should start in schools and continue through the early road user years, with graduated entry and access to more powerful vehicles only by virtue of age, advanced training, probationary periods and testing. Is this Government willing to implement such a scheme?
ii) Do you agree with the view that longer qualified drivers should get incentives to undertake advanced training with benefits accruable upon obtaining a recognised qualification. This would bring their skills and hazard awareness up to date and increase road safety for all. What alternative do you propose, or do you intend to do nothing?
Safe road design
Current Government efforts seem to be fixed upon a strategy to encourage speed cameras and to minimise any efforts to design out dangers on the road. The view of the electorate is that it the Government find it simpler and more lucrative to fine drivers, than to improve the basic safety of the roads. Recent television programmes have highlighted danger spots on the roads which have remained unchanged for years
i) Is the Minister aware that a considerable proportion of the electorate feel that little is being done to remove or redesign high risk sites on our roads because of the lack of funding. The public is extremely resentful of the fact that this lack of funding exists despite road transport taxes providing a considerable proportion of the Treasury budget income, far in excess of the returned investment. What is the Minister?s view on redressing this imbalance.
|
Just in case anyone wonders about the background and due to the missing older messages link here are links to the original threads.
Ask Byers Part 1
Ask Byers Part 2
|
|
|
Comments for you to ignore as you think fit, on wording.
May we propose the following questions for your forthcoming interview with Stephen Byers. We are a group [OF WHAT] who regularly correspond on motoring matters [. WE HAVE.....] and have put together these questions to represent some [ AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ] of the key issues which concern us as motorists and voters.
They [THE QUESTIONS] are presented under 4 key topics, and [WHICH] comprise a short introduction followed by a number of [DELETE A NUMBER OF] potential questions on the topic.
We trust they will be of value for your programme
Regards
Why can?t he drive? Ministerial travel
Most of your personal and business travel appears to consist of VIP travel on public transport or chauffeur driven ministerial cars and considering, in particular, your own failure [EMOTIVE. TRY NOT USE THE WORD FAILURE UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO PUT HIS BACK UP] to hold a driving licence; it is considered that you are demonstrably out of touch with the transport needs and issues of almost the whole population [INCLUDING THE PART OF IT] which elected you.
i) [DO YOU HAVE ]Have you any idea what the real situation is like for the general public in terms of motoring costs and hold ups [SLANGISH - CONGESTION?] for drivers, or the alternatives of inadequate and unreliable public transport.
ii) Have you ever discussed these matters with your constituents?
iii) Do you intend to correct the situation that you are out of touch [USE PERCEIVED AS OUT OF TOUCH, SINCE OTHERWISE YOU RELY ON HIM ADMITTING HE IS. YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH A PERCEPTION], and are perceived to be so by the public? How do you intend to correct this [THE LICENCE OR THE PERCEPTION?] and in what time scale?
iv) It is recognised that there will be security and scheduling issues which dictate that use of the ministerial car is the optimal solution [FOR WHAT ? OPTIMAL CHOICE PERHAPS ?]. Even so, why does the Government not levy a taxable benefit in kind upon Ministers who use Government provided transport in the execution of their official, political and private business, just as it does for other drivers who could not undertake their jobs in an efficient manner without use of a car and [WHO] do not have the Minister?s block exemption from benefit in kind tax.
Government Policy
A steady run down of public transport has resulted in the motor car being, for the majority, the only viable method of personal mobility, especially in rural areas. The Government?s own statistics show that over 80% of mileage travelled per person per year uses [IS BY] private road transport as opposed to all other methods including walking and air travel.
i) Why is the Government unable to accept this situation, and is seemingly bent on forcing people out of their cars and onto inadequate public transport?
ii) Is the Minister aware that the voting public views this as a serious attack on personal mobility? [BIT DEFINITE. MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE "THERE IS A GROWING FEELING AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT...]
iii) What is the Government?s fundamental objection to the motor car? The private car which provides the majority of the population with the optimal means of travelling to employment, supporting family life and social needs which are impossible to achieve on public transport [NOT A COMPLETE SENTANCE].
iv) Considering the Government?s own statistics clearly show the situation why do you plan "predict and provide" facilities for air travel but refuse to do the same for road transport. Is this because "Roads" is a junior ministerial position, despite the fact that [THE TOTAL OF, INCLUDING FINES?] road taxes greatly outweigh the sum of road transport investment and public transport subsidy.
Education
There is considerable concern among the [GROWING CONCERN? GENERAL PUBLIC?] electorate that the Government favours a policy of legislation and punishment for drivers, and benefits from the income fines from initiatives like speed cameras provide. This approach appears to ignore the benefits of driver education to improve standards, which would have much greater and lasting benefits.
i) Is the Minister aware there is a strong opinion [WHO ? AA, RAC ??] that education for road users should start in schools and continue through the early road user years, with graduated entry and access to more powerful vehicles only by virtue of age, advanced training, probationary periods and testing. Is this Government willing to implement such a scheme?
ii) Do you agree with the view that longer qualified drivers should get incentives to undertake advanced training with benefits accruable upon obtaining a recognised qualification. This would bring their skills and hazard awareness up to date and increase road safety for all. What alternative do you propose, or do you intend to do nothing?
Safe road design
Current Government efforts seem to be fixed upon a strategy to encourage speed cameras and to minimise any efforts to design out dangers on the road. The view of the electorate is that it [REMOVE IT] the Government find it simpler and more lucrative to fine [PENALISE] drivers, than to improve the basic safety of the roads. Recent television programmes have highlighted danger spots on the roads which have remained unchanged for years [WITHOUT SPEED CAMERAS ?]
i) Is the Minister aware that a considerable proportion of the electorate feel [TROUBLE IS YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT - GROWING CONCERN/GENERAL PUBLIC?] that little is being done to remove or redesign high risk sites on our roads because of the lack of funding. The public is extremely resentful of the fact that this lack of funding exists despite road transport taxes providing a considerable proportion of the Treasury budget income, far in excess of the returned investment. What is the Minister?s view on redressing this imbalance.
|
|
|
OTHER COMMENTS. IGNORE OR NOT AS YOU FEEL APPROPRIATE.
Why can?t he drive? Ministerial travel
Most of your personal and business travel appears to consist of VIP travel on public transport or chauffeur driven ministerial cars and considering, in particular, your own failure to hold a driving licence; it is considered that you are demonstrably out of touch with the transport needs and issues of almost the whole population which elected you.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE AS PROMOTED BY LABOUR PARTY. THIS INCLUDES FREEDOM NOT TO BE CHOKED BY POLUTIONG CARS OR HAVE CARS SPEEDING THROUGH YOUR VILLAGE. REGULAR MEETINGS WITH AA/RAC AND OTHER BODIES.
i) Have you any idea what the real situation is like for the general public in terms of motoring costs and hold ups for drivers, or the alternatives of inadequate and unreliable public transport.
WIFE/DAUGHTER/SON.BROTHER.SISTER/WHATEVER
ii) Have you ever discussed these matters with your constituents?
HAS REGULAR MEETINGS WITH THEM
iii) Do you intend to correct the situation that you are out of touch, and are perceived to be so by the public? How do you intend to correct this and in what time scale?
NOT OUT OF TOUCH. NOTHING TO CORRECT.
iv) It is recognised that there will be security and scheduling issues which dictate that use of the ministerial car is the optimal solution. Even so, why does the Government not levy a taxable benefit in kind upon Ministers who use Government provided transport in the execution of their official, political and private business, just as it does for other drivers who could not undertake their jobs in an efficient manner without use of a car and do not have the Minister?s block exemption from benefit in kind tax.
LIKE THIS ONE. CAN'T SEE ANY OBVIOUS WAY AROUND IT.
Government Policy
A steady run down of public transport has resulted in the motor car being, for the majority, the only viable method of personal mobility, especially in rural areas. The Government?s own statistics show that over 80% of mileage travelled per person per year uses private road transport as opposed to all other methods including walking and air travel.
WILL QUOTE SPENDING ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT WHICH WILL INCLUDE FIXING RAILWAYS AND MAKING BUS LANES.
WILL ILLUSTRATE 80% AS SHOWING PEOPLE CAN TRAVEL IF THEY WANT AND WOULD BE BETTER IF THEY DIDN'T
i) Why is the Government unable to accept this situation, and is seemingly bent on forcing people out of their cars and onto inadequate public transport?
WILL RETURN TO INVESTMENT ON BUS LANES AND RAILWAYS
ii) Is the Minister aware that the voting public views this as a serious attack on personal mobility?
DITTO
iii) What is the Government?s fundamental objection to the motor car? The private car which provides the majority of the population with the optimal means of travelling to employment, supporting family life and social needs which are impossible to achieve on public transport.
NO OBJECTION. TRYING TO BUILD BALANCE
iv) Considering the Government?s own statistics clearly show the situation why do you plan "predict and provide" facilities for air travel but refuse to do the same for road transport. Is this because "Roads" is a junior ministerial position, despite the fact that road taxes greatly outweigh the sum of road transport investment and public transport subsidy.
JUNIOR MINSTERIAL POSITION WILL ALLOW EASY SIDE-TRACKING
Education
There is considerable concern among the electorate that the Government favours a policy of legislation and punishment for drivers, and benefits from the income fines from initiatives like speed cameras provide. This approach appears to ignore the benefits of driver education to improve standards, which would have much greater and lasting benefits.
WRITTEN TEST IN DRIVING TESTS. TOUGHER - WILL QUOTE FAILURE RATES. WILL QUOTE DRIVING TESTS AFTER DRINK DRIVING. WILL QUOTE CONTACT WITH ADVANCED DRIVING ORGANISATIONS.
i) Is the Minister aware there is a strong opinion that education for road users should start in schools and continue through the early road user years, with graduated entry and access to more powerful vehicles only by virtue of age, advanced training, probationary periods and testing. Is this Government willing to implement such a scheme?
CURRENTLY STUDYING IT WITHIN EC
ii) Do you agree with the view that longer qualified drivers should get incentives to undertake advanced training with benefits accruable upon obtaining a recognised qualification. This would bring their skills and hazard awareness up to date and increase road safety for all. What alternative do you propose, or do you intend to do nothing?
INSURERS ALREADY DO THIS.
Safe road design
Current Government efforts seem to be fixed upon a strategy to encourage speed cameras and to minimise any efforts to design out dangers on the road. The view of the electorate is that it the Government find it simpler and more lucrative to fine drivers, than to improve the basic safety of the roads. Recent television programmes have highlighted danger spots on the roads which have remained unchanged for years
i) Is the Minister aware that a considerable proportion of the electorate feel that little is being done to remove or redesign high risk sites on our roads because of the lack of funding. The public is extremely resentful of the fact that this lack of funding exists despite road transport taxes providing a considerable proportion of the Treasury budget income, far in excess of the returned investment. What is the Minister?s view on redressing this imbalance.
PEOPLE CALL FOR SPEEDING TO BE CUT ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE FEEL IT IS DANGEROUS AND MAJOR CAUSE.
|
Mark
You'll probably be aware that I've been working with FiF offsite puting these questions together. Thanks for your input. I certainly like some of the suggested changes to questions in the first post.
Yes, you have come up with potential answers from Mr Byers. The problem is we are dealing with a politician, and he'll simply mangle his wording to answer his own question if if doesn't like ours. Frankly the best we can hope for is that the questions are broadcast, and even if they are not, that he gets the questions and they strike a chord somewhere in Party HQ at some stage. He is never going to admit the Government has got it wrong, or that they are going to change policy, whilst answering some public questions on a radio programme.
If we put in a series of totally unanswerable questions, he'll either duck out, or waffle anyway. We've hit the key points, we've deliberately mentioned voters several times, so let's give it a try. What do you think?
regards
John
|
|
|
|
Wow the backroom has its own grammar checker! I find new uses for this forum every day...
Can I post my essays on here? :-)
Only kidding,
Mark.
|
|
|
Mark,
Thanks for the input and further advice on better wording. As John says I certainly like some of the changes in the first post, I?ve commented on a couple below.
Again, as John says, it is impossible to pin a politician down, even if you ask a narrowly focussed question. The best we can hope is that some of the questions are actually asked on the BBC and it is clear to the listening public that either the issue is being avoided or that the Government is out of touch. Even Paxman fails to get an answer in the position where politicians have been nailed to the wall and will not admit the true situation or that they are wrong. Could even have seen that in the Backroom a time or two. That is no excuse not to ask the questions though.
Couple of points.
> We are a group [OF WHAT] who?..
Reply: The final wording of this will depend to a large extent on response from site owners. Disappointed to see nothing so far, positive or negative.
> in particular, your own failure [EMOTIVE. TRY NOT USE THE WORD FAILURE UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO PUT HIS BACK UP] to hold a driving licence;??
Reply: Personally I?m quite happy to put his back up, I think he IS considered to be a failure, except by the PM perhaps.
Final point, it has been commented a number of times about the broad spectrum of interests and experience in the Backroom. The only common link is that we are all interested in motoring, otherwise we wold not be here. I believe we have a reasonable cross section of society visiting here.
Even if the questions are not asked and Byers never sees them, I hope they are a resource so that folks have a base upon which to ask their own questions to their own MP, prospective candidates or whoever.
No altruism here, purely selfless, surely you can appreciate the position of if you don't like the law or Government policy campaign to change it in the consititutional manner. I believe these questions have been shaped in as democratic a way as possible, and stand on their merit.
Thanks to those who have already emailed your support, where are the rest of you paper tigers!
Regds,
Stuart
|
If a company car is not available for "private" mileage, then it isn't taxable. For example, if you drive to the office and pick-up a pool car to use for sales visits etc. no BIK tax is levied. (Note: key word is *available* - whether or not you use it is irrelevant.)
Hence, if the ministerial car is not available for private mileage (which would include travel to the "normal" place of work), then the fact it isn't taxable is consistent with how the rest of us are treated.
Peter
PS I agree with several of your questions. However, I'm a little put-off by the attack on him for not driving. You don't need to be a driver to understand the needs of motorists.
|
Totally agree - If you extend that argument, the Health Minister has to be (or have been) a doctor OR the Man from Ag & Fish (or whatever this week's name is) should be a farmer.
These people are POLITICIANS. This means they think that they can change deckchairs and instantly tell farmers how to farm or teachers how to teach.
The excuse they will use for this supreme arrogance is that they were elected.
Who elected Jo Moore?
This does not stop me totally agreeing with the other questions.
But, as has been said, do not expect "teflon" Byers to actually answer them.
|
|
|
|
This is a commendable effort by Stuart, John, Mark and the rest of the backroomers - I'm only sorry I did not contribute it. However, I am happy to have my name included in the list of sponsors for the questions.
BTW, Mark's suggested corrections seem very sensible to me. If we are trying to load JY's gun then it's as well not to fire blanks. Equally, his predicted responses are about what I would expect from a politician (Blyers, not Mark).
It would be nice if this interview were to go ahead - I think it depends a lot on timing. The bloke could be out of this job in the next cabinet reshuffle! Still, if they interview the incumbent minister he could always blame Blyers.
Ian Cook
|
|
|
I think the point re Byers' non-driving is valid. If he doesn't travel on the railways, how would he know the inconvenience and misery suffered daily by those who do?
So if he doesn't drive, how can he possibly understand the frustration of we drivers who have to negotiate this government's traffic-calming assault course?
How can he hope to be aware of the cynical placing of some of the speed cameras?
If he drove a car he would see these things first hand.
|
|
|
"If he doesn't travel on the railways, how would he know the inconvenience and misery suffered daily by those who do?"
I hope for Byers sake that when he gets sacked he doesn't get shifted to be Minister for the Disabled!
|
|
|
I totally disagree.
Well, there's a change!;-)
A government minister might decide that he thinks that a national health service is good, and privatisation bad. But he'll do it on philosophical and political grounds.
But he won't try to tell a doctor the best way to stick a hypodermic needle into a patient. If he tried to, you'd all insist he shouldn't unless he was an experienced doctor.
A politician may decide whether or not having a national carrier or a private air traffic control is a good thing, or even whether he believes that people should waste the earth's resources and detroy the ozone layer, etc, etc, by allowing politicians and environmentalists to jet around the world to exotic global warming/cooling/changing/if this is Wednesday it must be Bali and bl**dy ice age back round again conferences.
But if he tried to tell an air traffic controller how to talk down a plane on a collision course you'd all soon be telling him he's not qualified.
But, and this may come as a surprise, if a politician tells his minions to orchestrate traffic calming measures, it's not because he's told them previously to start with a blank slate, and investigate everything about driving, identify any problems, formulate logical solutions, and then fully test all the options, before reporting back with the optimum policy.
And if the minister actually drove himself, he might realise that if you're trying not to rip your exhaust off at 10mph over a speed bump, while avoiding wrecking your suspension or wing on a foot high built out kerb, you aint got much concentration left for pedestrians.
Hence the need for them to either drive.
Or remove all their anti car measures, and start with a clean slate.
|
Some excellent points well made there Bogush. I think it was very daring of the current administration to appoint someone without a driving license as the minister of transport - I doubt anyone pre New Labour/Spin would have got away with it but NL appear to do as they please!
Very much do as I say, not as I do. I certainly wouldn't mind someone driving me round in a 7 series BMW. Much like Byers, Livingstone and all those other aficionados of traffic calming/removal/congestion charging.
Good work on all this Stu and I really hope JY takes up at least some of your points.
Dan
|
|
|
|
Dan J
All I can say to you is "Barbara Castle"
|
|
Same under old Labour as well I guess?
|
|
|
In Blackburn Lancs. there is a new(ish) bit of town centre by-pass called Barbara Castle Way...
So Labour must be putting something back into the infrastructure. Shame it wasn't Mrs. T as a fly-over support foundation...
|
|
|
|
|
There is an old story, verification lost in the mists of time, that when they built the Hammersmith flyover they "lost" a worker who was last seen having a lunchtime snooze at the bottom of the shuttering just before they poured in a couple of wagon-loads of concrete.
|
|
|
"You don't need to be a driver to understand the needs of motorists."
Possibly not, but it helps. It's not that exclusive a qualification, after all...
FIF, please feel free to include me in your list of names. You'll find the real one in my email address (Mr Onetel...)
|
|
|
|
Just in case there was any doubt: put me down too!;-)
|
|
|
OK its been sent.
I'll post the final version here and send a copy to all the cosignatories later.
|
FIF,
It's gone???
And I was just working on re-write 14b that was so much better than Mark's.
David
|
|
Who does?!
Is that legal in the Fens?
|
Translations for urbanites.
"He who dares Rodders, he who dares"
climbs into yellow plastic pig, exits stage left in a cloud of oil smoke.
sound of backfire from off stage.
|
|
|
Stu,
I've just asked an old Fen boy doing a bit'o dyking about dithering.
He just mentioned "the ability to display a grey-level image in a bilevel device such as monochrome displays and many hardcopy printers. It consists of mapping the original grey image into a binary image then our eyes perform a spatial integration, it is possible to achieve reasonable results by using a mapping strategy where the gray-intensity values are converted to density of black pixels. This effect can also be used to some effect in merging different coloured pixels in a palette to produce an extra colour not contained in that palette".
He must be right because everyone's got a few pallets in the yard round here, now I know why....for the dithering
David
|
|
|
|
>"dyking"
That's WELL off topic!
Stu.
|
Funny that because Mark(Brazil) seemed amused when I was telling him something about big dykes running through the village.......he seemed to think it was some sort of festival...I never understood!
David
|
|
But do the big dykes arrive in a Talbot Samba?
|
Well no they just seem to run around the edges of fields before going into the river. May seem strange to you city folks but we're used to it.
David
|
"Talbot Samba ploy failed to get this back on topic"
Now I see it! In that "when should you indicate" thread the other day I was wondering where someone could appear from at those Fenland cross roads. You know the ones where you can see for miles in each direction, no hedges, no walls no nothing.
Obviously I have to signal for the Fenland Brazilian Bog Snorkelling Samba Band.
Things I do for you Mr MBRM to keep this lot on topic.
I'm off for my tea.
|
|
|
|
DW, I'd just taken a sip of tea as I read that, great self control excercised to avoid drenching the keyboard.
LOL ... almost thankfully.
Stu.
|
|
|
