Trouble is, like parking, there are lots of apps. What really pisses me off is when you need to use an app and there is either no mobile signal or crap mobile data speeds which is often the case on the Hampshire/ Dorset coast.Tight fisted wads won't pay for a new supply from the DNO by the sounds of it. A fairly common occurrence in my experience. There are 3 or 4 charging points around Earlsdon that I can't connect to, either because they are not on or are not on the app that you use to pay!
Well that’s a step in the right direction.All new public charge points have to accept payment by card... its only the older stations that are app only
It's a pain in the arse to pay by app in almost any car park anywhere. The option of using your card should be made a legal necessity when these machines are manufactured. It sounds a backwards step but at least it works . Done in 20 seconds.Trouble is, like parking, there are lots of apps. What really pisses me off is when you need to use an app and there is either no mobile signal or crap mobile data speeds which is often the case on the Hampshire/ Dorset coast.
At least with petrol you can use a credit card.
Oh what a surprise
https://archive.ph/jUJBR
It's the Tories in disguise. Even the Tories realised the fallacy of PFI
That’s a really interesting article. It seems that the Tories did recognise that PFI wasn’t a great idea, and fairly early on. But Blair and Brown promoted it and legislated to facilitate it, keeping investment off the public books. IIRC accountancy rule changes actually brought PFI back into the public books to add to the high rental payments, inflexibility of support services and developments on top of the common reduction in beds to keep the schemes “affordable” - which has helped create the problems that Labour are now promising to fix.
The way it is designed to work out, maximum private profit and minimum public service.That’s a really interesting article. It seems that the Tories did recognise that PFI wasn’t a great idea, and fairly early on. But Blair and Brown promoted it and legislated to facilitate it, keeping investment off the public books. IIRC accountancy rule changes actually brought PFI back into the public books to add to the high rental payments, inflexibility of support services and developments on top of the common reduction in beds to keep the schemes “affordable” - which has helped create the problems that Labour are now promising to fix.
The observation about management consultants rang bells with me. In the 90s I attended two workshops facilitated by the same management consultants. The first was based on their analysis that there were too many beds in the area, the second - 12 months later- was predicated on their analysis that there were too few beds in the area.
It will be interesting to see how Labour getting into bed with captains of industry works out this time.
That’s a really interesting article. It seems that the Tories did recognise that PFI wasn’t a great idea, and fairly early on. But Blair and Brown promoted it and legislated to facilitate it, keeping investment off the public books. IIRC accountancy rule changes actually brought PFI back into the public books to add to the high rental payments, inflexibility of support services and developments on top of the common reduction in beds to keep the schemes “affordable” - which has helped create the problems that Labour are now promising to fix.
The observation about management consultants rang bells with me. In the 90s I attended two workshops facilitated by the same management consultants. The first was based on their analysis that there were too many beds in the area, the second - 12 months later- was predicated on their analysis that there were too few beds in the area.
It will be interesting to see how Labour getting into bed with captains of industry works out this time.
New ones should be but aren't. The ones going in around Coventry are app only and a lot of them are < 1 year old.All new public charge points have to accept payment by card... its only the older stations that are app only
Will the OBR need to publish an opinion on that?Going back approx 8 years I bought a car off and Indian doctor who worked at uhcw he was selling up and had managed to get a job in an Australian hospital,he said uhcw had to find £1 million a month to pay the PFI loans.
I was staggered tbh ,I don't know if it is actually the truth but what a disgusting state of affairs if true.
No idea Malc, I'm not as clued up as many of you on here on these matters,it just seems a recipe for failure to me.Will the OBR need to publish an opinion on that?
Too complex an argument to have in an election campaign, whereas PFI is extremely simplePFI needs to get in the bin, people just need to grow up about borrowing to invest in infrastructure.
Well, they usually have something to say about increasing public borrowing and national debt.No idea Malc, I'm not as clued up as many of you on here on these matters,it just seems a recipe for failure to me.
The PFI costs at UHCW are pretty enormous and the operating company very inflexible when trying to change things. The last annual report shows £27m in mainly PFI interest and nearly £7m in mainly PFI capital charges. The doctor you mention was understating the PFI cost enormously.Going back approx 8 years I bought a car off and Indian doctor who worked at uhcw he was selling up and had managed to get a job in an Australian hospital,he said uhcw had to find £1 million a month to pay the PFI loans.
I was staggered tbh ,I don't know if it is actually the truth but what a disgusting state of affairs if true.
And extremely expensive.Too complex an argument to have in an election campaign, whereas PFI is extremely simple
The problem is that, given the cost of EVs, it will probably be the average working man who will be paying through the nose to drive those more polluting, noisier cars. Just as is happening with your mate Khan’s ULEZ. The tiffs can afford compliant cars, the worse off can’t,The supply chain isn’t hugely different though a bit less mature. These are all silly complaints trying to justify not changing. Like we don’t ship ICE cars around the world or use parts from different places. The EU and US moving away from China is something that’s happening regardless.
You want to drive a less efficient, more polluting, noisier, more expensive car in twenty years crack on. Just don’t be surprised when everyone looks at you weird and you’re paying through the nose for the privilege.
They can often make EVs more expensive for a journey than an ICE, especially diesel.New ones should be but aren't. The ones going in around Coventry are app only and a lot of them are < 1 year old.
Most fast/rapid chargers take card along with a kidney. Boy are they expensive.
That really is amateur.How are they so bad at this?
If my 2010. diesel passes and was 3k 3 years ago I don't see the problem for Londoners yet at least?The problem is that, given the cost of EVs, it will probably be the average working man who will be paying through the nose to drive those more polluting, noisier cars. Just as is happening with your mate Khan’s ULEZ. The tiffs can afford compliant cars, the worse off can’t,
Tons of older cars qualify. I was reading an article in The Mail of all publications about it. Tons of old jaguars, BMW’s, Audi’s, Bentley continentals and at the other end of the scale any petrol mini. So in the case of the mini a 24 year old car is compliant.If my 2010. diesel passes and was 3k 3 years ago I don't see the problem for Londoners yet at least?
Yep I guess the fear will be eventually things will tighten up who knows who'll be mayor by then?Tons of older cars qualify. I was reading an article in The Mail of all publications about it. Tons of old jaguars, BMW’s, Audi’s, Bentley continentals and at the other end of the scale any petrol mini. So in the case of the mini a 24 year old car is compliant.
All classic cars over 40 years old are free of Ulez payments,a 5.2litre 1966 Dodge Charger is the way to goTons of older cars qualify. I was reading an article in The Mail of all publications about it. Tons of old jaguars, BMW’s, Audi’s, Bentley continentals and at the other end of the scale any petrol mini. So in the case of the mini a 24 year old car is compliant.
So basically ULEZ collects no money then. I guess Londoners are just whinging for nothing then.Tons of older cars qualify. I was reading an article in The Mail of all publications about it. Tons of old jaguars, BMW’s, Audi’s, Bentley continentals and at the other end of the scale any petrol mini. So in the case of the mini a 24 year old car is compliant.
I wonder why the ULEZ was introduced then? If it affects no one. Except it does.If my 2010. diesel passes and was 3k 3 years ago I don't see the problem for Londoners yet at least?
I wonder why the ULEZ was introduced then? If it affects no one. Except it does.
Or just raising revenue.ULEZ is recognising the negative externality of car pollution and attributing a cost to this in the hope of influencing behavioural change.
ULEZ is recognising the negative externality of car pollution and attributing a cost to this in the hope of influencing behavioural change.
Or just raising revenue.
ULEZ expansion is more about money than clean air
Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) expanded to cover all London boroughs this week. This regressive levy will cost drivers £12.50 a day and will not make significant headway in terms of cleaning up London’s air.www.taxpayersalliance.com
I was responding to a post suggesting that hardly any cars are affected by it, which surely can’t be the case.
Or just raising revenue.
ULEZ expansion is more about money than clean air
Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) expanded to cover all London boroughs this week. This regressive levy will cost drivers £12.50 a day and will not make significant headway in terms of cleaning up London’s air.www.taxpayersalliance.com
I was responding to a post suggesting that hardly any cars are affected by it, which surely can’t be the case.
The judiciary in general and especially the Supreme Court, introduced by Labour, is pretty left wing. The recent decision in relation to oil drilling in Surrey was yet another example of their bias and lack of common sense.This is just a rant from the TPA, it’s not a serious critique of ULEZ, it’s a far right think tank FFS.
The aim of all clean air zones is cleaner air because the government lost a court case: ClientEarth, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2013] UKSC 25 (1 May 2013)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?