Monday, 4 May 2009

You've Got To Speculate To Accumulate

Labourites may outwardly frown on Capitalist methods, but this administration tends to show signs which bear an uncanny resemblance when it comes to tax collection.

Speeding tickets are earning the Treasury £250,000 every day and the number issued each year has doubled under Labour

Meanwhile, The Telegraph can reveal that the number of speed cameras across Britain is about to soar further.

At least six new designs, which will take digital pictures and link to a control centre wirelessly, are set to be approved by the Home Office within months.

I do believe that businesses term such behaviour as investing resources to achieve the economic principle of maximising profit.

The next generation of cameras, set to be approved by ministers, will be far cheaper to run because they are digital and wireless - removing the need to rely on film which has to be collected by traffic officers.

Isn't that a reduction in labour overheads so despised by idealistic lefties?

A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: “Safety cameras are there to save lives, not make money. Independent research has shown there are 1,745 fewer deaths and serious injuries at camera sites each year ..."

There is so much wrong with this piece of spin. Independent research (which is, no doubt, considering this government's track record, nothing of the sort) says that each accident is costing drivers, collectively, over £50,000.

There is no stark figure of deaths prevented. It is lumped in with injuries, which sort of suggests that the figure for deaths wasn't scary enough for repeating again and again.

There is also no mention of what difference there would be in these statistics if alternative forms of policing were employed instead. It is an absolute figure, designed to dog whistle to the easily-panicked, in order to convince us that there isn't another option.

Other options, though, are more fair, and don't result in an income to government of £88m per annum. Other options would also not punish poorer drivers more than those who are minted, as penalty charge notices do, but why should a socialist government worry about such inequality?

"... and local authorities use them where they believe they are the best way to tackle local safety problems."

Just as Swindon council did last year when they roundly rejected the practice of maintaining speed cameras which they were required to pay for, but for which they received marginal revenue.

But Swindon councillors decided the £320,000 it puts into the partnership would be better spent on other safety measures like warning signs and street lighting.

They said the number of people killed or seriously injured on Swindon's roads had begun to rise in the last two years and new strategies were needed.

See? Once we take the lure of income out of the equation, other ways of minimising danger become more attractive. Labour seem to have forgotten that in their adoption of capitalist principles.

There is also no mention of the potential danger (marginal, yes, but must be considered) of drivers worrying about speed in the shadow of a speed camera, instead of concentrating on the circumstances around them, as highlighted by the Devil.

As for this fantasy ...

"The government is clear that the best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in deterring drivers from speeding.”

So, if there wasn't a single fine issued, the outlay on cameras would continue? With all due respect. Bollocks!

The capitalist will always look for ways to increase income, and Jack Straw has already identified a novel way of adding another 25% to the stealth taxing of motorists in the form of a £15 victim surcharge.

You've got to be in it to win it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You've got to speculate to accumulate. Labour seem very conversant with capitalist practices.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...


The proportion of accidents said to have been caused by speeding. I bet most of these were WELL over the speed limit ...