Transport in the future

  Progressive European Party

I spend most of my political time on Twitter @Prog_Party, unfortunately I get into a lot of rows and it is mostly with other rejoiners. One recent set too was in response to a comment I made on a Tweet from Andrew Adonis @Andrew_Adonis. Andrew said that the high-speed train needed to go to Scotland soon. I said it would be out of date before it was up and running. That set them off, I of course don’t know what I am talking about and it would take so many people in just a few hours how could it get out of date. 

 

What is not being taken into consideration with regards to travel time is that passengers do not live at railway stations. Passenger's all have different points of departure and different destinations to get to. They could be coming from Wales or Cornwall and travelling to Dumfries or Inverness. The time saved by a high speed train from London to Edinburgh is only a small part of the journey time if you have far to travel. What works better is transport that can take a passenger from door to door. 

That transport is of course the car. With the coming of electric engines, this form of transport will no longer be a major contributor to air pollution. The most significant change for public transport will come from self-driving cars, the autonomous vehicles of science fiction have become a reality. Some semi automated cars that can change lanes and park themselves are already on the market and completely driverless cars are on our streets in the development stage.

 

As soon as this evolution in transport moves to its next level of development, which is the fully autonomous taxi, public transport can be totally transformed. Robotaxis are already operating in China and with 6G, which is expected to be rolled out in 2030, the transport revolution can be completed.

 

When low cost Robotaxis are available countrywide it will no longer be necessary to own a car. Private cars spend most of their life immobile, but still costing their owner money. Why put up with all the expense of private ownership when you can call a cab from an app on your phone that will drop you anywhere you need to go. 

 

The driverless cars of today still have a sterling wheel and all the controls and a driver just in case. Much as the computer controlled trains that run on some Metro systems still have a driver in the cab, just in case. Very soon this will no longer be necessary as the technology progresses at a fast pace and will be proved to be safe and reliable.

 

This will transform our world, not just because we can get in a taxi, give it the address and sit back and relax as it takes us there. The car itself will no longer need controls in the cab or a windscreen allowing interiors to be completely redesigned. A table and chairs, a bed, a drinks cabinet, a tv. Anything you like that fits into the space and makes life more comfortable.

Motorways can be restricted for the use of autonomous vehicles only making the completion of long journeys far faster. Imagine Robotaxis all moving at the same speed all at the same distance apart, always in the right lane and moving at the correct speed for the road conditions. There will be no need for motorway lighting, no reason to slow down because of fog and no speed limits as they will always be moving at the highest safe speed. 

 

A criticism could be that taxies are expensive compared to public transport, not everyone will be able to afford them. This would not prove to be the case with Robotaxis as most of the cost of a taxi fare pays the wages of the driver and the staff who take your booking. These jobs will go, making a Robotaxi far cheaper than a current taxi. Local authorities subsidise bus routes, on many of these bus journeys the bus is less than half full and it runs on some arbitrary time table. Far better to subsidise the Robotaxi service. The OAP bus pass can become a Robotaxi pass, pensioners will clearly benefit from a service that is available day and night and can take them from door to door. 

 

There are other benefits over conventional transport. The huge amount of space that is taken up by shopping centre car parks will become unnecessary. Drop off and pick up points and loading bays will be all that is required. Side streets will no longer be full of parked cars as the total number of cars will be reduced. Buses can be assigned to the history books and the extraordinarily high costs of HS2, Birmingham to Edinburgh £100bn+, can be forgone. 

 

What does Government need to do to implement this transport revolution? Very little is the answer. Private companies are funding the research and development of autonomous vehicles. What Central Government could do is make sure G6 is rolled out on time and stop spending billions of pounds on prestigious high speed rail projects. Projects that can only ever benefit a small number of citizens compared to autonomous vehicles which will benefit everyone. It is far better to put the investment into maintaining and developing our existing road and rail networks and embracing the new technology as soon as it arrives. 

 

Philip Notley 

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please donate, a donation no matter how small helps us to build tomorrows politics today  

The Duke of Edinburgh 1921 - 2021

 Our condolences to Her Majesty The Queen and all the royal family

https://www.royal.uk/

Britain enters eight days of national mourning for Prince Philip. National mourning will last until 8am on the day after the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral.

The housing crisis for first time buyers

    Progressive European Party

In response to a tweet by Tom Harwood

Tom Harwood

@tomhfh

The only people around my age I know who have been able to buy a house are those who have not had to pay rent. Stuck forking out a third to half your income on rent? You're stuffed. No other generation had to put up with this.

The Progressive Party has a solution for the housing crisis that would provide more properties for first time buyers and end the council waiting lists without costing taxpayers any money. I will cut and paste our housing policy below.

The problems come about because banks don’t lend money for mortgages from their cash reserves. They generate the money electronically. This creates a lot of free money and therefore artificially inflates house prices. 

Building developers are mostly interested in building three bedroom houses because that is where most of their profits lie. Whereas the trend in society is for more people living on their own. What is needed are more one bedroom and studio flats which would also help first time buyers get on the housing ladder. 

Local authorities have been restricted by the government in how much new housing they can build. And when people are paying rent their landlord most probably has a mortgage on the property themselves so they have to charge rent higher than the costs in order to make a profit. Add all these things together and you have the perfect storm for high rents and house prices. 

The Progressive European Party 

New Housing Initiatives

One of the most pressing issues of our time is the inadequate provision of social housing. It is an area of policy that has been neglected by successive governments for many decades.

The results of this neglect are all too obvious in both urban and rural areas. The demand for housing far outstrips the supply and secure, adequate and affordable housing is now a distant dream for the majority of families and individuals.

The Progressive European Party intends to address this problem from its very roots.

Central government does not, at present, allow local government to borrow against the value of their housing stock in order to raise the finance necessary to build new housing. In addition local government is not allowed to use the money it generates from the right to buy scheme to build new housing. If such borrowing and relocation of funds were to be allowed, new social housing could be built at no cost to the taxpayer. If, furthermore, 50% per cent of these new builds were sold on the private market, the revenue from these sales could be put towards the cost of each project. Such a scheme would work perfectly in predominantly urban areas. In such cases the high building costs would be offset by high house prices. Thus the revenues from properties sold would be more than enough to cover the costs of the entire project. In other words, each well-managed project would provide new social housing completely free of cost. In some areas of the country, the whole cost of building might not be fully recoverable from private sales. In such instances, however, it would still be possible to build social housing at approximately half the cost of solely social estates. The savings generated would thus be enormous. The effect of this would be that the chronic housing shortages in the private sector would at last be alleviated. Social housing would at last be available to all who need it.

The total cost of building could not be expected to be reimbursed from the sales in every part of the UK. Nevertheless, each project would still ultimately cost nothing. For any remaining unsold properties would be rented. This rental revenue would easily cover interest payments on any outstanding loans. These housing initiatives will also provide an opportunity to upgrade building regulations to require high standards of safe, fire-proof insulation for all new builds. Catastrophes of the type typified by the Grenfell Tower disaster would be averted and winter heating costs would simultaneously be minimised. New flats, for instance, would have only one outside wall. Thus insulation cost per unit would not be significantly greater. New building regulations would also make solar panels and, where appropriate, mounted wind-turbines mandatory. The electricity generated could either be used directly for heating or, at times of surplus, be sold into the National Grid. Technologies such as storage radiators and efficient insulation would provide efficient and cheap or cost-free heating. Fuel poverty for occupants would become a thing of the past. Providing suitable housing for all would save local authorities millions of pounds. Currently local authorities spend large sums on bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless. By the same token, at present, when a family becomes homeless, children have to be taken into care. This is inordinately expensive. Central government, moreover, currently spends £25 billion on the UK's housing benefit bill. To sum up, the need for local authorities to build low-cost, inferior housing would be obviated. Because about half of new homes would be sold on the open market they would need to be of a high standard to attract buyers. Finally, therefore, the plight of first time buyers and council waiting lists would, in due course, be ended. Good quality homes would be available for everyone at no cost to the taxpayer.

Our slide into Right wing free market libertarianism

  Progressive European Party

What was so shamefully christened project fear, that was in fact, the very real concerns of people for their own and their countries well being, has turned out to be mostly accurate. It is fair to say that there has not been the fast overnight crash that may have been the outcome with a no-deal. It has been more like a slow death of a thousand cuts. But it is a significant blow to trade between us and the European Union bloc. 

This was probably more intentional than we may have first thought. They clearly knew what the outcome of leaving would be. How many unpublished assessments of the various deal or no deal scenarios have there been. The worrying thing is that they did not care if there was a no-deal or if they just signed any last minute deal that the EU put in front of them. Not minding the chaos that ensures from leaving because they want the UK to turn its back on EU trade. That is why they are making the UK-EU trade harder to do and less profitable. It is a failure of our democracy and also of the democratic structures within the Conservative party, that has allowed people who are clearly only out to line there own pockets, being able to hijack the political system. Using it to push their own private agenda with no regard for the welfare of the citizens who elected them. Let alone those of us who voted in a different way. Businesses that depend on EU trade going to the wall was a sacrifice that they are more than willing to make. That was all a part of their plan, it is not the direction that they want the country to continue to go in. Which means the bigger picture is that they have other plans and they are keeping that little dark secret from us. 

Across the water, things have eventually moved on. The opponents of far-right extremism got themselves motivated and pulled out all the stops to win. It is interesting however to note that Trump received more votes in 2020 then he did in 2016, making it really tight. What did it in the end for Trump were his failings with regards to dealing with the pandemic. Trump lost because of Covid. 

We need to take note of this because regardless of how we may feel about the daily toll of Brexit dividends the quitters are still intrenched in their views. It may well look to us that by losing the battle we have at least won the argument. But that is not so, I see comments every day like, “it is only a bit more paperwork” and “you can work in the EU if you want, you only have to fill in a form”. So I don’t think that Brexit job losses empty supermarket shelves or Priti Patel acting like a little NAZI is going to win it for us. But COVID19 can. Holding Boris Johnson and his Governments feet to the fire over their handling of the pandemic with its seemingly never-ending death tole is how we can win.

I am sorry to come to the inevitable concussion that because of the limiting constraints of our sub-standard political system that we have to endure we will have to vote Labour in the next General Election. It is with a heavy heart that I say this, socialism is only marginally better than conservatism. But at least there are many Labour MP’s that are still pro EU. The main agenda has to be to stop the countries rapid slide into libertarianism. A Labour win is the only way that this can be achieved. 

Our biggest loss is that we are no longer a part of the greatest project in world history. The peaceful transformation of Europe into a Nation state. It is to our shame and detriment that this has happened. We will, in the end, return to the United Europe that we have been so forcibly disconnected from. But we are going to have to do this one election at a time.

Philip Notley

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com 

Nineteen Eighty-Four

    Progressive European Party

One of the things that we can take from George Orwell's 1984 is that if you can control the past by the rewriting of it, then you can control the present. This is what happened to our world in 2016 and it has continued to happen since. Not the rewriting and editing of history as was being done in Orwell’s book. We can after all still read old newspapers and history books and still view old newsreels and documentaries unadulterated.

 

The rewriting that I am referring to has been done by the biased slant put on the social history of the UK from the end of WW2 until today. And on the pre-war era of Empire and global domination that this country prospered by. As well as the war years themselves where it is spun, we were standing alone against tyranny. 

I do not remember any of the anti-European Union spin doctors saying, make Britain great again, but that is what it amounted to. 

Looking at the past through rose coloured glasses and making out that there is a twenty-ninth member of the EU called Brussels that somehow tells all the other member states what to do. An oppressor that dominates our lives and takes away our freedom of choice and self-determination. That holds us back from once again being the greatest nation on earth is what has been spun. 

We can not rerun the 2016 referendum and even if we could the result would probably still be the same. The fact is that if you tell people what they want to hear then they tend to believe you. 

One recent new spin that has been put on our present predicament is that it is the remainers who have taken away the option of a “soft Brexit”. It is our opposition that has made only a hard Brexit now possible. Whereas the truth is no soft opinion was ever put on the table. If there had been a Norway deal on offer I for one would never have gone on all those Marches. 

The past is easily forgotten as it is diluted by the present. The present we have today is dominated by COVID19. The death of thousands of people is always going to be a far worse outcome than the negative effects of leaving the European Union without a pandemic was ever likely to have been. And if we are not careful after the bendy banana day of the First of January the benefits of EU membership will become a distant memory. 

As time goes by the job losses and social deprivation that is happening because of Covid will be hard to distinguish from the similar effects caused by Brexit. 

So how do we make our own spin on events that can distinguish between Covid and the loss of trade that will come about from Brexit? How can we make a new case for EU membership once lorry parks and the end of freedom of movement have become normalised as a part of life?

We took our eye off the ball before and were outmanoeuvred by people who only care about their own prosperity and don’t care at all about their fellow citizens. This was our fault, when were we in parliament square with our EU flags before 2016. Never as far as I can remember. We need to make sure that we do not make the same mistake again. So what should be our next move? As soon as the Covid restrictions are at last over we need to get back on the streets with our flags and never let them forget about the prosperity and economic security that we have lost. 

It is likely, it is almost a certainty, that the EU member states will recover economically from the pandemic far faster than we can by standing alone. They will also be taking an economic hit from Brexit but it will be nowhere as bad as the one that we will be suffering from. Pointing to the EU as an example of where we could be today if we have stayed a member is a good starting point for our campaign. We have to make a strong case that can be distinguished from the downturn in the economy caused by Covid and we need to start doing so now. 

Philip Notley 

ProgressiveEuropeanParty@gmail.com

This is not a democracy

      Progressive European Party

It is shameful to wake up in a world where a bunch of unscrupulous charlatans have taken power and are unashamedly creaming off the country's wealth into their own and their friend’s pockets, sending us all into ruination in the process.

The Progressive Party's call for Direct Democracy would end any possibility of the Citizens of this country being ripped off in this way ever again.  

There would still be elected politicians doing their job just as now however when it comes to voting on policies we would all be participating in the vote. There would, of course, be times like now with the pandemic where a government would need to use emergency powers to take control. But woe betide them if they got it wrong. They could easily be removed from power.

Sadly all we can do today is sit back and wait for four more years and hope the next lot manages better. We are no better off now than we would be if we lived in a dictatorship. This is not a democracy.

Philip Notley 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/21/reek-corruption-british-politics-discontent-democracy

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/corruption-and-dark-money-now-the-life-blood-of-the-tory-party/

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/uk-corruption-conservative-party-dark-money-boris-johnson-brexit

Illegal immigration, what is the solution

  Progressive European Party

Some of the people who wish to restrict immigration into the UK and their supporters insist that illegal immigrants receive benefits. Whereas in reality illegal immigrants do not get housed by local authorities or receive any state help. 

The confusion comes from the likes of Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, who try to muddy the waters between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. 

The picture being painted by Hopkins and Farage is that we are soft on refugees. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are one and the same thing and they are advocating that we need a regime far severer than the one we have today to deal with them. What can we say, or for that matter do, about this type of fake news? Because the truth is somewhat different.

In May 2009, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reviewed the UK and expressed concern “at the low level of support and difficult access to health care for rejected asylum-seekers.” It recommended that the UK “ensure that asylum seekers are not restricted in their access to the labour market while their claims for asylum are being processed” and review the regulation of “essential services to rejected asylum-seekers, and undocumented migrants, including the availability of HIV/AIDS treatment.” In 2010, the UNSpecial Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants endorsed these recommendations and urged the UK Government to ensure “that refused asylum-seekers are not left destitute while they remain in the United Kingdom.”

In other words, despite what Farage and Hopkins may tell their supporters we already treat them badly. Illegal immigrants would most likely be arrested and deported if they did try to claim a benefit and asylum seekers are not here illegally.  

The UK is a signatory to the UN's 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. There are certain refugee rights that we are obligated to meet as signatories. 

These rights include:

• The right not to be forcibly returned, or refouled, to a country in which the refugee has reason to fear persecution (Article 33)

• The right not to be expelled, except under certain strictly defined conditions (Article 32)

• Exemption from penalties for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31)

• The right to work (Article 17)

• The right to housing (Article 21)

• The right to education (Article 22)

• The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23)

• The right to freedom of religion and free access to courts (Articles 4 and 16)

• Freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26)

• The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28)

If Farage thinks that we should leave the convention then that is what he should be campaigning for instead of trying to make out that we are a soft touch. In reality, the UK is not a soft touch for asylum seekers, far from it, in many cases, our provisions for refugees are woefully inadequate.

The type of racist propaganda being whipped up by these zealots has always been around. As anyone who remembers the National Front in the mid-1970s can testify. Today because of modern communications this kind of rhetoric is far more accessible to their supporters. Most of their followers seem to lap it up without attempting to make any factual appraisal, mostly I suspect because of confirmation bias. 

However, we should not let our repugnance for the peddlers of racism distract us from facing up to the immigration problem that we do have. Not the people who come here and then claim asylum, with them there is a set protocol to follow. The problems lie with the immigrants who are living here illegally. Most of whom did not cross the channel in a rubber dingy, but came here legally and then stayed on after their visa had expired. Many of them come from countries that you would most likely not associate with illegal immigration. The United States and Australia for example.

There are countless others brought here by people smugglers and are then forced to work, essentially as slave labour, to pay off the "debt" to their traffickers. Not only do these people not have access to public funds, but health and safety, workers rights or the minimum wage simply don't exist for them. 

It is not known how many illegals there are in the country, estimates put the numbers at anything between five hundred thousand to well over a million. Being part of the black economy no tax revenue is collected from them and most likely not much from their employers either.

What are the solutions?

Boris Johnson has in the past suggested that we should have an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Being Boris Johnson his proposals are low on detail and change what little detail they do have each time he puts the idea forward. His idea is to give amnesty only to people who have lived here for 5,10,12 or 15 years depending on when he said it. This will not solve the problem for anyone arriving in the back of a lorry this week or for most of the ones who have already arrived because they will not have the documentation necessary to prove how long their stay has been.

Talk about a Catch 22, illegals can stay if they have documentation, but they don’t have documentation because they are illegals. 

The only real way of solving the problem is to give amnesty to everyone regardless of how long they have been here. This would give them the right to remain and work here indefinitely so bringing them into the system. With the possibility of over one million people to process, this would have to be very well organised.  

Wouldn't this just give the green light to the people smugglers? A smugglers charter. 

No, in fact, it would put the smugglers out of business. They rely on the people they have brought into the country paying off their "debt" by working for them after they have arrived. This will no longer happen to new arrivals and the ones here now can be set free from their servitude. Hopefully, this will also help to identify and prosecute the people involved in this illegal trade. 

What happens after the amnesty period is over, the smugglers will just go into business again?

Everything will have to be tightened up to stop this from happening. More international cooperation will be needed to track down the criminals. It is also imperative that illegals that are found are treated as innocent victims and given help. Everything should be done to pick apart the organisations that maintain them here. The Chinese cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay were all living somewhere and working for someone. And temporary visitors will need to register on arrival and be traced so we can be sure that they are all leaving on time.

If we accept that we have a major but mostly unseen problem then the resources will have to be made available to prevent us from getting in this position again. Giving illegals no options other than to remain hidden or be arrested and deported can never be a solution.

Philip Notley

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com