CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Spending Review

(97 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot

1234

  1. chdot
    Admin

    "cheeky" refers to Spokes view of a letter from Central Edinburgh MSP Marco Biagi.

    This says that responsibility is more for local government than central. Spokes takes issue with this.

    Mr. Biagi does say -

    "Edinburgh actually has some of the better provision from a council level, and at 4% Edinburgh currently has the highest modal share for cycling in the whole of Scotland. That share should be higher. I recognise the strong interest in and support for cycling in Edinburgh. On behalf of the many constituents who have raised this I therefore intend to enter a dialogue with the City of Edinburgh Council to press them for clarity and strategy on how they intend to deliver better provision for walking and cycling here in city. I would be happy to keep you updated on how this progresses."

    Which is interesting/positive.

    He doesn't drive and walks a lot.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. mgj
    Member

    Hmm, CEC seem to be planning to spend more of their scarce capital provision on a new white elephant sports stadium for the bankrupt football team in the west of the city, on greenfield, but at least it will be near a tram stop.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. SRD
    Moderator

    a thoroughly unimpressive reply here:

    Thank you for getting in touch with me regarding your concerns about funding for active travel rather than for infrastructure projects.

    Whilst I do sympathise with your request, I am also aware of the very tight margins inside which the Scottish Government must operate. As there are many other essential initiatives and policies putting great pressure on budgetary decisions, I would prefer to hear how the Cabinet Secretary plans to deal with these before making a judgement on my own priorities for budget spending.

    Yours sincerely,

    Margo MacDonald MSP

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "Draft Budget fails Scottish economy"

    http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/draft-budget-fails-scottish-economy.aspx

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. crowriver
    Member

    @SRD, Margo should stop pretending she's independent of the SNP. Clearly, emotionally at least, she never left. Her response sounds like that of a party loyalist. It's also deeply patronising, telling you that your concerns are not important. What are the important matters then? Minimum alcohol pricing? Anti-football hooligan laws?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Margo is in the "elect Margo to the Parliament" party I think, whose "policies" are anything likely to get Margo elected to the Parliament. The people need Margo. Parliament needs Margo. Vote Margo.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. wee folding bike
    Member

    Crow,

    People who suffer violence after football games might quibble.

    People who have to deal with kids who spent lunchtime with a bottle of cider might quibble

    For most people active transport means nothing. Perhaps it should be different but it's not. I'm far from convinced that big government campaigns work on this kind of thing. Seeing me cycling to work all year does make people interested. Poorly designed and wasteful schemes l,e the recent one in London Rd, Glasgow wouldnt even get me using them.

    I think Margo got a raw deal on her end of life bill. It was sent to committee for reasons outwith her bill. It was never likely to pass but I think she deserved better.

    And now it's almost time for the packed GFT cinema to see Labyrinth. Laters.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    People who suffer violence after football games might quibble.

    I believe violence against other people is already against the law. Singing songs or chanting phrases of a sectarian nature is what the legislation is aimed at. Can't see how they are going to enforce it. The police can already arrest you for looking at them funny (sorry, "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace"), public disorder, etc. so I don't see the point of a new law. It's just the government playing to the gallery, being seen to do something regardless of effectiveness.

    People who have to deal with kids who spent lunchtime with a bottle of cider might quibble

    Selling alcohol to the underage is already illegal. How putting the price up will stop these hypothetical kids is anyone's guess. Won't stop the alkies either. It might just increase the market for cheap, dangerous, life threatening illegal "hooch' sold by your local gangsters, mind.

    For most people active transport means nothing.

    That may well be true, but the government ought to know better. That's why they are in government, to lead. Not to make cheap, populist gestures just to address whatever the media decide is the problem du jour.

    If this is the "new politics" we've been promised post-devolution it is a pretty depressing prospect.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. wee folding bike
    Member

    And even with these things being illegal you admit that they still happen so perhaps we could try other options.

    Independent research supports minimum pricing as do the police… slightly bizarrely the Westminster leaders of some Scottish members might support it too.

    If you don't like the democratically elected representatives of the people you are at liberty to stand for election yourself. Inevitably thigs which people feel are important will be reflected in the program of legislation if you want to call this populist then feel free. Good luck with your unpopulist agenda Democracy might not be perfect but it rubs along.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/around-the-capital/tackle_sectarian_abuse_by_docking_points_says_margo_1_1950093

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. crowriver
    Member

    And even with these things being illegal you admit that they still happen so perhaps we could try other options.

    Lots of illegal things happen all the time. People driving whilst on their mobile phones for example. It's been illegal for some time, the problem is enforcement. How on earth they are hoping to enforce rules against football songs I don't know.

    Independent research supports minimum pricing as do the police.

    Research which fails to account for the huge profits retailers will make after this legislation comes into force, money which will not be spent on tackling the root causes of excess alcohol consumption. Somehow England has a lower consumption of alcohol, yet the prices are the same. There's no evidence that putting the prices up will have noticeable effects on problem drinkers. The responsible majority will have to cough up more for a tipple though.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. wee folding bike
    Member

    So you admit that making things illegal doesn't stop them. This doesn't explain why you are against trying something else.

    Were the opposition half smart they would have accepted the minimum pricing in the spring when there was an offer of a sunset clause.

    I don't know how the Police plan to do this but there is a problem and I'm happy to try for a solution. If it doesn't work they can try something else. The clubs haven't managed to deal with it on their own.

    I don't follow the more profit for shops argument. If it were the case then why are shops not lobbying for this legislation? It seems they have considered it and don't agree with you. Even if they do make more money it's not illegal for shops to make a profit and prior to the election the opposition in Edinburgh blocked the Tesco tax which would have reduced the profits of big stores so the opposition obviously don't agree with you that profits should not increase.

    If you are drinking the kind of alcohol where minimum pricing will make an impact then you might want to re-evaluate your position or you have misunderstood why minimum pricing is a smarter move than increasing taxation.

    Are you really sure you want to claim that there is no evidence that putting up prices will have a noticeable effect? A simple Google search will trip you up on that one and I can do that if you like but you may want to take this opportunity to rephrase it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. wee folding bike
    Member

    So did anyone else read the docking point and think:

    1 Boris Bikes

    and

    2 What will they be docking with?

    I had to read the linked web page before it made sense.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. Instography
    Member

    @WFB - I think it depends where you get your independent research.

    The University of Sheffield's research was commissioned by the Department of Health for England and the Scottish Government (who got a search-and-replace version of the English research) for Scotland so not wholly independent. That research makes, what I think is, an error in applying their model of the relationship between price and consumption. They have data that shows, broadly speaking that the real price of alcohol has been falling while consumption has been rising. They conclude that alcohol consumption responds to changes in price - as price goes down consumption goes up. But all their data relates to a period when real prices have been falling and consumption rising. The error, as I see it, is to assume that the converse is also true - that as prices go up, consumption will fall in the same way as has risen as prices fell. But economists have known forever that goods that show high demand elasticity when prices are falling can also become inelastic as prices rise. This downward stickiness in consumption, in response to rising prices, has been observed for years in connection with tobacco and other (mainly illegal) substances to which people form wholly or partially dependent relationships. Their estimate of a saving of £1bn over 10 years is comparable, I think, to the 85% of head injuries prevented by helmets.

    A little more independently, the Institute for Fiscal Studies had a much more cautious position on the potential impact, which relates to crowriver's point. The IFS noted that, "... if a policy like this were rolled out across Britain it could transfer £700 million from alcohol consumers to retailers and manufacturers. This contrasts to increases in alcohol taxes, which largely result in transfers to government in the form of much needed tax revenue. In the long-term, it would be desirable to restructure alcohol taxes so that they were based on alcohol strength, thus allowing the tax system to mimic the impact of a minimum price but ensuring the additional revenues went to the Government rather than firms."

    In terms of the impact on consumption they concluded that "Minimum alcohol prices are untried and their effects, relative to the impact of increasing existing tax rates, are unclear. The way in which consumers, retailers and manufacturers respond to higher taxes and price floors could be very different."

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. wee folding bike
    Member

    As far as I am aware Hollywood does not have the power to vary alcohol taxes far less vary them with alcohol content. That would require a more dramatic piece of legislation. They have to work with what they are given.

    Are shops in favour of minimum pricing?

    It seems there is some other research on the elasticity or otherwise.

    http://www.carbc.ca/Portals/0/PropertyAgent/2111/Files/6/AlcPricingFeb06.pdf

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. LaidBack
    Member

    There's no evidence that putting the prices up will have noticeable effects on problem drinkers.

    Would putting prices down have an effect then?

    Is alcohol unique amongst products that it's purchase and consumption is not affected by pricing?

    When a supermarket charges less for alcohol (or anything) they expect to increase sales. Selling cheaper is all about moving more units - which means more 'units' available to drink. With higher prices supermarkets would sell less 'units' at a higher price - so profits would not rise (maybe fall though as alcohol is used to 'sweeten' other food deals? Consumption is falling in pubs due to price I think.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. wee folding bike
    Member

    I though pubs claimed it was falling because of competition with supermarkets. That would still be price related.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. Instography
    Member

    I don't remember saying that Holyrood could vary alcohol taxes. The point that the IFS was making, which I think is similar to what crowriver was saying, is that minimum pricing transfers money from consumers to retailers and manufacturers. That Holyrood only has one club in its bag doesn't mean that it should take it and use it, especially when the more important point (for me) is that their modelled estimates of the impact on consumption and harm, what they have used as the basis for their policy, is pretty weak.

    The paper you linked to makes some good and interesting points and has lots of useful observations from the literature but all of them are very general. You could see them as approaching statements of the obvious. For instance, "The exact responsiveness of any kind of alcohol to a particular change in price will vary from place to place, but in almost every instance that has been studied or for which data are available, price increases have led to decreases in consumption, and decreases in price have led to increases in consumption." That's all very well. It's almost tautological but it kind of misses the point I was making. My reading of the Sheffield research is that they used recent data from two social surveys - the General Household Survey and the Expenditure and Food Survey to calculate their elasticities. I don't have any problem with how they've done that. My problem is that those elasticities are derived from a period in which real prices of alcohol have been falling and consumption is increasing. They have no data that describes the elasticity in a situation of rising prices and, as far as I can see, they have made no adjustment of their calculated elasticities to account for the potentially different response to increased prices. They have simply assumed that what happens when prices fall will be reversed when prices rise.

    I also have to say that the other thing that convinces me that this policy will have limited impact is some analysis I've been doing looking at the relationship between alcohol consumption and deprivation across Scotland. It might be popular to see hazardous alcohol consumption as a problem of people guzzling Buckie but as far as I can see the problem is really one of people having their wine delivered in 12-bottle boxes by Laithwaites. The strongest relationship is between consumption over the recommended limits and affluence. 40p a unit? They're already paying well over that.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. wee folding bike
    Member

    As I recall it's not going to affect Buckie either. We used to have lots of empty bottles in the back garden and we don't now but we moved house so there might before than one variable.

    I'm not sure that is what crowriver is saying but I'll leave that one there.

    Pubs might argue with you as might petrol stations. They seem to be finding that price is an issue.

    I'm not sure how the tautologies miss what you were saying. They seem to cover exactly what you we saying.

    If we try it we can find what happens. You don't know that it will not work. Should it fail then it's a fairly easy one to back away from. If the government has no financial advantage they can stop increasing the minimum price and it will stop having any impact. I don't know if the sunset clause is still in place. There is no longer an incentive to have it.

    How did you define hazardous?

    Perhaps we will find it really is all down to the caffeine.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. Instography
    Member

    'Hazardous' is the consumption band between 14 and 35 units a week for women and 21 and 50 units a week for men. Above that it is called 'harmful'.

    Retailers are concerned about price because they use it as a way of competing. That's not so difficult is it? When you set a price floor you limit the scope to compete. It doesn't matter to them whether aggregate demand changes. They are concerned about their ability to compete over commodities that people will want to buy regardless.

    The tautologies miss the point (OK, I was kind of blaming them when the problem is really that your referencing of the tautologies misses the point because the scope for different elasticity when prices are rising and falling is contained within the generality but so is ever other possibility). Citing the generalities doesn't address my specific point that the elasticity of demand when prices are falling tells you nothing about elasticity when prices are rising. For the Sheffield research it means that it is wrong in research terms (i.e. Bad Science™) and therefore also possibly empirically wrong.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. wee folding bike
    Member

    As I understood the other paper they had data on price increase. Wasn't that your issue?

    The hazardous definition seems odd. It's not defined by the effect. Perhaps across the population that makes no difference and a certain number of units does map to a likely effect. There also seems to be a big variation, more than 100%. Any reason why the band is so wide? Is there no significant difference between the hazard at the low and high ends.

    Why are retailers not concerned about aggregate demand? That seems a strange idea, if the aggregate demand drops then the size of the cake drops regardless of the individual slice.

    You appear to made an assumption that people want to buy this regardless or perhaps you mean they want to but will not continue to. If you're right about there being no data on an upswing price, and I though the other paper said there was, then you don't know that yet.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. Instography
    Member

    Which paper had data on price increases? The Canadian one? The Sheffield one? Which page? Actually, it doesn't matter. The question is not whether consumption declines in response to price increases but how. The calculated elasticities in the Sheffield paper are about the response to price reduction not increases. Their data sources mean that they're dealing with behaviour during a period of falling prices so, as the IFS pointed out, we don't know how increasing prices will influence behaviour. I suspect demand will adjust less and more slowly to price increases than it has to price decreases. It's what was learned from cigarette smoking (and it's what we know from petrol consumption). Of course, I don't know that this is how it will work in practice but then I'm not introducing legislation on the basis of what I don't know.

    I have no idea how they come up with the definitions of hazardous and harmful. They do seem broad and I suspect it reflects the degree of uncertainty about the impact and variability in impact across the population.

    Why would retailers not be concerned about aggregate demand for alcohol? I think because it's not where their profits come from but it restricts their ability to compete. If you make no profit from beer it doesn't really matter how much beer you sell. It matters more whether people buy beer at all. A crude example. Let's say you know that with every other beer sale there will also be a sale of a tube of Pringles. Let's say you make no profit on beer but you make a healthy profit on Pringles. Let's also imagine that it doesn't matter if people buy 1 bottle or 10 - they still buy one tube of Pringles. If Pringles sales are contingent on beer sales then you want to attract beer purchases so that you can make Pringles sales even though you make no profit on beer. If there is no mechanism to compete on beer prices you end up having to compete on Pringles prices. So a price floor on beer reduces the profit on Pringles and overall profit margins (which might only be partially compensated by the creation of a profit on beer). I think that's the kind of thing they're concerned about.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. wee folding bike
    Member

    Page 5 as I recall. You did seem to think it was quite important.

    The exact responsiveness of any kind of alcohol to a particular change in price will vary from place to place, but in almost every instance that has been studied or for which data are available, price increases have led to decreases in consumption, and decreases in price have led to increases in consumption. In general, across different places and in different times, it has been found that spirits are most responsive to price changes while wine and beer are slightly less so (e.g. Edwards et al, 1994).

    And I agree with Ben Goldacre, it's annoying when you can't get hold of the original paper but I'm not going to pony up for a university library card.

    Petrol is different. I'm fairly sure people can do what they need to do during the day without alcohol. The memsahib informs me that she can't get the kids to and from school then get to her work without using a car and since there are four kids it has to be on the large side. Unless she jacks in her job and hauls the weans around by bike she will need to keep buying petrol.

    In the summer we borrowed my dad's diesel S80 which gets 2-3 times the mileage per dollar that our 940 2.4 petrol wagon gets. We went more places because it didn't cost more. When my dad got the all clear and was allowed to drive again we stopped running around so much. Of course I do the sums on whether it's cheaper to use the car or the train and few people bother with that. Even I don't consider tyre wear etc just fuel and parking. I also do the sums and conclude that it's probably not worth rushing out to buy a diesel and we will keep the petrol one for a while longer.

    You might not know for sure what pricing will do but you do know that education doesn't seem to have worked. Longer opening hours doesn't seem to have made us go all continental either. The last Westminster gov tried that one.

    I suspect there is more to it than the secondary sale. Tesco are claiming that they will sell alcohol from England and ship up vans from Daventry. Now, I know Pringles are spendy, but it's hard to see them having enough margin to cover a van from England. They may be willing to sacrifice profit for market share and presence. I would be less susceptible to a secondary purchase on line as I have time to sit down and do the sums which might not happen in the heat of the moment in the checkout queue.

    Tesco might not be the best example as they have come out in favour of minimum pricing.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. Instography
    Member

    But that's just a general statement of price elasticity. It applies to almost every commodity. It's not data.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. wee folding bike
    Member

    As I said I don't have access to the paper but if they say "it has been found" that suggests that someone has data.

    Can you get the paper?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Letter printed in The Herald [www.heraldscotland.com] 15.11.11 Link to letter [requires free registration to see whole letter]

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-letters/take-bigger-steps-to-sustainable-travel-1.1134825

    Text of letter as printed [i.e. as edited by The Herald letters editor!]

    Take bigger steps to sustainable travel

    Published on 15 Nov 2011

    Alex Salmond states in Parliament that his Government must follow the SNP election manifesto on an independence referendum – a worthy sentiment, particularly as his party has an overall majority.

    But on the lower profile subject of investment in walking and cycling he is quite content to run a coach and horses (or should that be an HGV?) through the same manifesto.

    The manifesto promised to “increase the proportion of transport spending on ... active and sustainable travel”. Not a difficult task, given that the existing proportion is around 1%.

    Yet the draft budget 2012/13, now being consulted on, slashes the sustainable and active travel budget from £25 million in 2011/12 to £16m in 2012/13, while throwing doubt over the very existence of the cycling, walking and safer streets fund, which forms the basis of local authority walking and cycling investment. At the same time, total transport spending shoots up, thanks to a £100m boost for trunk roads and motorways.

    Rather than increasing the proportion of transport spending on walking and cycling, it is being devastated.

    Dave du Feu,
    2 Greenpark Cottages
    Edinburgh Road Linlithgow

    "

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. minus six
    Member

    incidentally you don't have to register to see the full articles on the herald site -- just disable javascript on the browser, and it will show the article in full

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Spokes has prepared answers to SNP justifications of the government’s big cuts to cycling and walking investment in the draft 2012-13 budget, now being consulted on…

    "

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2011/11/budget-2012-13-snp-arguments

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Details revealed of major Scottish capital projects

    A series of 50 specific [rather than unspecific?] projects and 30 infrastructure programmes are expected to be outlined.

    Details of multi-billion pound plans to improve Scotland's road network and build new hospitals, schools and prisons will be announced later.

    Yay! More roads! Just what we need to get out of an economic malaise.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. crowriver
    Member

    Hmm. Only two mentions of cycling in the capital budget plans, on p.120 of the appendix. No specific measures proposed for investment whatsoever.

    However, there are very specific roads proposals all over the place.

    I wonder which will receive capital investment?

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin