« A Theory of Social Governance | Main | Big Surprise »

September 11, 2007

Paying for Car Parking

This looks a little odd, don't you think?

Under the plans, councils would be given the power to demand that big supermarkets and other stores on the outskirts of towns charge their customers for parking.
...
The policy review group, which was co-chaired by Zac Goldsmith, the millionaire environmental campaigner, and John Gummer, the former Tory environment secretary, added that the money raised by the new charges would be used by the local authority to fund improved public transport.

So, if people park on private land, the owner must charge them and then hand the money over to the local council? That is what is being suggested here, isn't it?

Is it possible that Mssrs. Gummer and Goldsmith are not quite au fait with the Tory Party's traditional belief in private property rights?

The The Boy Dave (C) says:

Mr Cameron argued that a new approach was needed after a decade during which "the poorest in our society have got poorer … social mobility is falling.

Social mobility may well be falling, but the poorest are not getting poorer. They're not getting richer as fast as the rich are, to be sure, but their absolute level of living is not falling.

The report will also argue that local communities should be given more powers to resist plans for big superstores in order to defend local shops.

So we'll protect expensive and inefficient producers at the expense of the consumer.

There are times when The Stupid Party seems all too appropriate.

September 11, 2007 in Environmentalism | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00e54edb16c28833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paying for Car Parking:

Comments

"There are times when The Stupid Party seems all too appropriate."

And those occasions are growing exponentially now The Boy Dave is in charge...

Posted by: JuliaM | Sep 11, 2007 8:25:32 AM

Twats, frankly, what they should do is charge the supermarkets more land value tax on the land used for car parking. As long as the tax is less than the value of the extra customers that the supermarket gets, it's still a win-win.

Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | Sep 11, 2007 8:27:05 AM

An easier way would to be charge non-domestic rates on car parking. This is not (i think) currently done and is/was a big bone of contention for smaller businesses.

Posted by: Jim the lurker | Sep 11, 2007 9:05:45 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I hate my party.

Posted by: Philip Thomas | Sep 11, 2007 10:12:57 AM

There are problems with planning and supermarkets and those need to be solved. Actually, there are problems with planning.

That said, one reason why the "poor", which, presumably means everyone poorer than little Zac, can have a decent standard of living is because of supermarkets. As for no social mobility - would that have anything to do with the rubbish education we have in this country?The one that the Tories have no desire to change?

Posted by: Helen | Sep 11, 2007 10:19:16 AM

The word you are groping for is "Communism".

Such "ideas" are so utterly LUNATIC as to make one seriously question the rational thinking and critical reasoning of those who make such suggestions.

Posted by: Roger Thornhill | Sep 11, 2007 10:20:06 AM

"The report will also argue that local communities should be given more powers to resist plans for big superstores in order to defend local shops."

Local communities already have that power; they wield it by using the local shops instead of the big superstores. If sufficient consumers prefer Grocer Jack's personal service to Tesco's low prices, Tesco would close, and Jack would prosper.

"what they should do is charge the supermarkets more land value tax on the land used for car parking."

And guess who ends up paying for it? It certainly won't come out of the supermarket's profits.

Either way, using revenue extorted from car users to subsidise bus users is, as always, absolutely unjustifiable.

What they should do is to shut the fuck up and keep their grubby little hands in their own pockets.

What the hell has happened to the Conservative Party? I despair.

Posted by: Ian Bennett | Sep 11, 2007 2:02:30 PM

"And guess who ends up paying for [the land value tax]? It certainly won't come out of the supermarket's profits."

Theory and practice shows that land value tax is the most difficult to pass on; the burden fall almost entirely on the landowner.

Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | Sep 11, 2007 4:06:19 PM

Any increase in overhead can be passed on to the consumer simply by increasing gross margin. How is land value tax any different?

Posted by: 6th Column | Sep 11, 2007 10:23:04 PM

Post a comment