Work more, earn more, spend more

[TreizeVents]

Hi Quillan,

Just spent 45 minutes replying in detail to your post, much of which I agree with.  The one with lighting, recycling and so forth.  Very nice post.  Just what I take delight in.  Why I began the thread.  Thank you.  I will try to reply later.  I apparently didn't sign in and when I signed in all my post had vanished.  Hmmm.  Usually the seond time its a better post.

[Russethouse]

People just quote rogue sites and bad TV programmes, which have already been discussed at length elsewhere on the forum.  Some of you seem to have a strong desire to ignore the (vast) majority view of climate science, perhaps because some of you see all change resulting in higher taxes, which you seem to have a strong dislike for

Can we move away from this - I'm not sure how to spell it out to make you understand. 'Some of us' are not ignoring climate science but we are looking at the whole picture. Nature has a substantial part in the planet heating up, cooling down etc and scientific records prove that this has happened before and will again.

A practical example : a couple of weeks ago I was a Q & A style event with a well known TV gardener, he was questioned about global warming re gardening issues and told the audience that he had recently visited an UK garden originally planted in Roman times. The records of the planting show that the plants that thrived were those you would expect to find in Mediterranean areas now - from that I think it pretty fair to assume that the UK was warmer then than it is now and yet the population was considerably less so what caused the heating up and subsequent cooling, if not nature?

As someone (Logan or Gluestick has posted) we already have the vista of a tax on flights, yet what is this extra revenue for ? Is it going to fund some imaginative scheme to help the environment or is it just another way to tax us? As I said earlier as there is an element of nature in this issue we can never get on top of 'global warming' which could be misused in order to continue to give governments an excuse to tax us more and more highly.

No one has said either, that they are not interested in looking after the planet better and respecting it more, you have just assumed that. On a day to day basis we recycle our rubbish, do not use plastic carriers, buy local or English in season produce where possible, switch off appliances, turn down heating etc, etc - and I suspect that is in common with many forum members.......no doubt we will all embrace other environment friendly changes as it becomes practical to do so.

If you started this thread because you wanted a debate, then debate the issues and argue your view, please don't just belittle other opinions because they are different to yours. By the way I agree broadly with all of the items Q has posted and I guess that most of the people taking part in this thread do too.

[Gluestick]

The erruption of Krakatoa created a volcanic "Winter" which lasted for some years.

Interesting NASA site:  http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/03oct_novarupta.htm

Natural phenomena have and do create startling significant climate changes, very fast.

The danger is abuse of logic, here. It is too often a case of  Illogical Syllogism, an argument with two contributory facts with an erroneous conclusion.

Example:

Moles have facial hair.

Gluestick has facial hair.

Ergo, Gluestick is a mole!

Applied to climatology it sort of goes:

The climate is changing.

Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can change the climate.

Ergo it IS CO2  which is presently causing climate change.

If  supposition and an assumption are represented by the media as a "fact" often enough and supported by "An Expert", then eventually supposition and assumption have become fact.

 

[cooperlola]

As in "I see what I eat, therefore I eat what I see".  I just hate to see the "global warming is a myth" argument being used as an excuse for carrying on abusing the planet. (I'm sure nobody on here does that!)

[Quillan]

Cooperlola – I think that the majority of us, whether we believe in the CO2 thing or not, do generally care about our planet. I have bought a smaller car primarily because it goes a lot further than my old one on a tank of fuel (around 5 times further). I try and recycle where I can. I have replaced, where I can, all my lamp bulbs with low energy ones but I leave my TV on standby. I have looked for alternative sources of electricity (we live on the river Aude). I burn sustainable wood on my fire. I clean up after myself and have even been known to pick up other peoples rubbish and put it in a bin. I have had the same shopping bags (OK they are made from plastic) for 5 years now and always have one to hand when I go shopping. I cleaned up after my old dog when he did his do-dahs outside. I only go to the doctors when I am near the crawling on the floor stage. I recycle garden waste. Some I have done to save money others because it was instilled in to me as a child to do. I know I could probably do much more and I try to do more if the situation arises. I don’t think for one moment I am the only person doing these things, I am sure there are many out there doing more than me.

Gluestick – I liken the Global Warning thing a bit like the old year 2000 thing. Loads and loads of spin, many of us (in the IT industry) made a fortune out of paranoid companies who thought that at a second past midnight the end of the world would come. People did not fly because planes would drop out of the sky, trains would crash, cars would stop working all sorts of things. In reality there were very few problems, less that 1%. But remember the media hype at the time and all the experts that where wheeled out to tell us the world would virtually come to a halt. All the IT departments that paid triple and quadruple the wages for their staff to be at work that night. I believe the guy who printed the “Year 2000 Compliant” stickers retired to the Bahamas in 2001 a very rich man. There was a whole new industry created by this and they made a fortune. In reality with Global Warming I don’t think anyone really knows. More and more people and scientists are coming out now to question the IPCC report and you need to listen to both sides of the argument and draw your own conclusion. I don’t think that those that believe in GW are idiots or fools, they are entitled to their opinion. Likewise I do get upset when us non-believers get called all sorts of names just because we don’t believe. It seems a bit one sided in that respect.

By the way is that you living at the bottom of my garden, I seem to have a lot more mole hills than last year [;-)] I read State of Fear, great book and as you said loads of excellent stuff in the back and well worth following up. The bits I have make very interesting reading.

[Gluestick]

Yes, I like the Y2K analogy: very apt.

Agree about personal consumption habits, totally.

Just because global warming might not be caused by human activity, directly, is no excuse for, or support of, ecological profligacy!

personally, I forst became interested in the environment and ecology perse when I read Vance Packer's book, The Waste Makers, which followed his earlier work The Hidden Persuaders. The two together made a powerful argument.

Obviously as oil runs out, it will diminish in volume and as in any market the law of Supply and Demand comes into play: the price will rocket. Again obviously, wasting crude oil on very inefficient energy (typically 30% ish) production for motorised transport when it more critically needs to be used as essential industrial feedstock, will have to be controlled, until each socially-crucial industrial process can find an alternative.

Furthermore, as I said before, we also urgently need to consider atmospheric pollution in terms of breathable air, which in London, e.g., it clearly isn't. Huge increases in Nitrogen Oxide (IC engine by product) have caused an epidemic rate of increase in allergic respiratory diseases such as asthma.

Thus, CooperLola, I don't think anyone participating in this thread advocates an ecologically-contemptuous lifestyle or consumption habits: it must be said, however that many people in the West do precisely that!

Buying a Hummer for social cachet or ego-inferiority is an excellent example, to me!

Living at the bottom of you garden, Quillan? No, that's my third cousin.

Final comment: this thread really needs to be split into two: climate change/global warming and the original focus, i.e. le petit Nicolas, his planned economic and social reforms and etc.

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Will"]

"Rubbish – Pay people to recycle. OK I don’t mean give them physical money but how about giving them a discount of their Tax de Habitation, the more you recycle the less you pay."

Nice idea. However I seem to recall that schemes to record how much rubbish individual households threw away or recycled, measured by fitting microchips to bins, were generally dismissed - including, I seem to remember, on this forum - as another example of the 'big brother' approach that causes people to leave Britain for France. So perhaps there is more of a 'green' feeling among those of us British who have not moved 100% to France.

TV, I don't see why the fact that I had previously only made one post on this topic should make my opinion any less valid. And also the fact that I had not commented on the original topic raised, as I think it is far too early days to know what the Sarkozy government is actually going to do to liberalise employment law, does not mean that I or other users take no interest in French politics.

[/quote]

I think what people saw coming with the waste thing was more charges on top of what they already pay and the fact that the collections were about to be halved which I too think is another way of beating people with a big stick. We are just about to have our collection raised from two to three times a week and at our village meeting we were told by the mayor that there would be no extra charge. Likewise we will be getting recycle bins as used in other towns so we don't have to go to the central one in the village which from where we live means taking the car.

My main point was to use a reward system rather than a penalty system to make people want to do these things and in doing so they see a tangible difference.

[Gluestick]

Everyone, but eveyone is avoiding the issue on waste recycling, really.

In 1978/79, I was asked to put together a feasibility study for the city of Athens on waste recycling and management.

Amongst other companies contacted and involved in the First level stage of the project were Peabodies plc, a UK company.

The effective treatment of waste and turning it into sensible and viable outputs which were ecologically friendly, was already an industrial available process 30 years ago.

Athens decided not to proceed.

It is a known and identifed fact that landfill creates a range of undesirable side effects, including methane gas, nasty chemicals leaching out into the water table, etc.

Where I live in Essex, part-time [:D] the rural areas was used since Georgian times as the waste dump of London, this continued throughout the Victorian age. If you want to build, you have to arrange and pay for a complete in-depth EIR (Environmental Impact Report), since various areas are considered too hazardous to human health due to methane leaching out of the sub-soil.

This did not stop Essex County Council putting in a massive landfill programme for a private company a few years back, including a large new access road over green belt! Serious graft was alleged by the leader of the anti-campaign whom I knew very well.

Friends in France live 30 minutes from us. One of the most delightful and sought after nature paradises near them may well be decimated by a new landfill; to handle Parisian waste. Graft is alleged!

Either we humans are serious about waste treatment and recycling or we aint!

Landfill Tax (in the UK) on skips etc, was a classic conjob! Blather on about the horrendous problems, charge a swingeing tax; and then do bugger all![:@]

The only reason Government got away with it, was massively rising property values.

 

[Gluestick]

One further comment: once again on ITV news today, comments about bi-weekly refuse collections being expected to reduce waste and improve recycling were followed by an item about a Yorkshire private sector collection service for £90 per annum, which aims to fill the gap.

People not wanting to put up with stinking bins for up to 13 days are signing up in droves, apparently.

From all of which I can only conclude that the bi-weekly collection is only about cost savings, but still charging the same council tax! Or once again, charging for a service which is not delivered, a favourite government ploy, lately!

The "Justification" is as logical as the moron interviewed when Dartford Tunnel Authority were proposing to double the toll fee from £1 to £2 (Nevermind the fact that by now it was promised to be toll free!).

The idiotic spokesman suggested that they were raising the fee to reduce the congestion!

Presumably all those who live in Kent and work in Essex and visa versa will retire?

The rest will shlap all the way to the east End and use Blackwall Tunnel?

What planet do these clowns inhabit? How dare they think we are that stoopid!

 

[Russethouse]

The trade off with fortnightly collections is that it has been shown to increase recycling rates, frankly if you do not recycle everything you can, it would be impossible to get the ordinary waste bin lid closed with consequential odour and vermin.

In the last local elections I voted for the candidate who offered to review this topic, obviously I wasn't the only one, she won !

Last year I signed a petition objecting to fortnightly collections and received a letter asking why I was complaining as there cannot have been odour or vermin as it was the colder weather. Great - we cannot use a little common sense or forethought - lets wait until we have a situation to actually deal with!

Different topic:

There is an interesting article in the Independent today, re food air miles. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2594124.ece

The lead article is a plea from an Inuit too take care of the planet and in this is linked to the Stanstead Airport planned expansion

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2594163.ece

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="Logan"]

Quillan wrote:

"Green Peace has turned in to a multi million dollar industry and has stopped being an activist group and become a political group so it has succumbed to power in the end."

Should this statement be true then I commend it as an example of how the ecologist movement and the market can work together to achieve results. To change anything in society politics has to be engaged with action. 

[/quote]

I know Quillan has said this once before at least.   I have no

idea what Logan means by his comment, so won't say anything.  But as for

Quillan, I would love to have a bit more detail.  Those of us who have

followed developments in the movement for years have always been divided on

Greenpeace.  Unlike (for example) the Friends of the Earth in Britain,

Greenpeace as always been an organization where "local members" try

to recruit more members to pay dues to the national group.  They do not

actually DO all that much in terms of action, at the local level.  The

national groups then organise actions that local groups could never afford to

do, with a special eye on media impact and drama.  This has always been

what Greenpeace does.  Those who are more inclined to "local

democracy" and "grass roots organisation" have always been a bit

critical of Greenpeace for this "top-down" style.  As for me, I

rather like the variety our movement has produced, and although I have never

been a member of Greenpeace, many people join expressly to support the dramatic

and well-financed actions it does.  Having said that, I have no idea what

you might mean by it no longer being "an activist

organisation".  It seems to me it has been doing what it has been

doing for many decades.  Pretty much the same way.  I don't see any

change at all.  It is also true that they have loads of money and can hire

experts and workers who are the equal to any NGO and certainly as good as any

of their opponents in industry or government.  But genuinely, I wonder

what you mean by it has become a "political group".  IT ALWAYS

WAS, as I understand politics (roughly, conflict about power).  And it

certainly has not stopped being activist in exactly the way it always

has.  Where is the change?  I promise that if you take time to answer,

I will forward the answer to the Chairman of the Board of Greenpeace UK, so she

can read it and take account.  Maybe she has heard it before.  I am

not bragging, I just happen to know her.  I don't know many people like

that.

[Logan]

Activism and politics surely are part of the same beast. I don’t know why you are constantly confused TV. Politicians and activists engaged the market for a variety of reasons. For example, seeking media publicity for a particular cause is engaging the market. Commercial endorsement is another. Activism and politics does not inhabit a separate world from the rest of us. It is part of the same capitalist process. Do you imagine that an activist who writes a book or makes a film on a particular subject is not engaging the market? I could write a worthy essay on this subject rather in line with your posts but I have not the time. Unfortunately for you and your philosophy the market rules. Long may it continue to give us all an opportunity to shine.[:D]

[Gluestick]

Sadly, I fear that the implication was that if Greenpeace has indeed become a political group (which cannot be denied as they have huge political influence in Germany for example), then the original ethos has been forgotten and passed over in exchange for political power.

One of the problems with political power and significance of course, is that expediency gradually creeps in, until it overwhelms original pure volition. As an example, a career politician who seeks cabinet office must inevitably abandon pure cause in order to accord to the whips direction.

In any case, Greenpeace and F of t Earth have discredited themselves of recent, by failing to accept the reality of Step Change against Paradigm Shift.

Porrit wants to ban cars and trucks. Nice.

He fails to outline how people meantime travel to work, food shop and how food per se is distributed.

If mankind is to reverse the awful dynamic of over-exploitation of natural resources, then this must be a gradual and inexorable process rather than instant event, if society as we know it is to demonstrate a continuum.

 

[Quillan]

Firstly I admire Greanpeace for a lot of it work and particularily for the work on whaling.

Greenpeace is NOT a political party in it's own right but does work very closely with the Green Party throughout the world rather like the trade union movement in the UK and the Labour Party. If you do a search on "Greenpeace and Green Party" there is quite a lot of stuff like the recent visit of a Green Peace ship (Artic Sunrise) to Scotland in Feb of this year to be used by the leader of the Scotish Green Party (Robin Harper) in his campagn to stop the replacement of Trident. There is loads of other stuff to read (over a million) if you want to sit and plow through it all. There are heavy links between Greenpeace and the Green Party in New Zealand which of course is natural given the Rainbow Warrior affair.

[Logan]

Gluestick wrote:-

One of the problems with political power and significance of course, is that expediency gradually creeps in, until it overwhelms original pure volition. As an example, a career politician who seeks cabinet office must inevitably abandon pure cause in order to accord to the whips direction.

Yes it's called political pluralism. Representing as an elected official the whole constituency rather than a vocal minority or his/her personal views. That is the skill and responsibility of politics. Attempting to change things for the better, spreading influence, transforming or improving entrenched attitudes without alienation and within a collective discipline.

I believe very much in democratic politics. It represents our principal hope for a better world. Sometimes and often it becomes staid and a caricature of its reason for being. Yet improvement still continues slowly even with lousy governments. Optimism is all we have to cling to when a world’s minority is bent on self destruction.

Pressure groups do make a difference but only in my view when they engage main stream political opinion and thought. Politics is the only effective vehicle for change. It would be very odd if Greenpeace and the like stood aside and refused to engage with it. Likewise the market where other real influences and power lie.

 

[Gluestick]

James Stewart was in a wonderful film of 1939, Mr Smith Goes To Washington.

In this, as a man asked by a majority of his neighbours to represent their view, he sole handedly battles corruption. Probably the climax is a scene where he filibusters to the point where he is unable to speak.

Fat chance of this today in the UK system, with PM's questions doled out on a "Buggin's Turn" basis!

Having some little experience of the political dynamic, I question precisely how a career politician can democratically repesent his electors, when he is being compelled to vote the party line by the whips, in order that he can gain preference. If a majority of his electors desire the diametric opposite of the party line, there is an instant conflict of interests. How many MPs today, would throw away their chance at cabinet position and all the perqs this brings?

On far too many occasions, I have been with members on the terrace or with Ministers in their ministries, and the division bell has rung, whereupon they rush off to vote, not having hear any of or participated in the debate!

[quote] I believe very much in democratic politics. [/quote]

Don't we all! Trouble is in the UK and USA at present, there aint no such beast! As Tony Benn and others have repeatedly pointed out.

My hopes reside in la belle France, where any serious political threat to the social contract is greeted by demonstration (which right is enshrined in the code of the Forth Repulic). Lionel Jospin and Dominique de Villepin both discovered this, as I believe le petit Nicolas will too.

 [quote] Pressure groups do make a difference but only in my view when they engage main stream political opinion and thought. [/quote]

Don't they just!

The most vocal and militant have successfully managed to gain massive changes in law and populist opinion by abusing the media to distort average opinion. Which is precisely what the Climate Change, Carbon Tax and Recycling arguments herein are mainly about!

[quote] Politics is the only effective vehicle for change.[/quote]

Depends how one defines "politics": direct action, has enjoyed certain result. Yasser Araffat achieved success as did Nelson Mandella and the ANU. Both, however, used direct and sometimes violent action rather than party politics, as of course did Lenin.

[quote] It would be very odd if Greenpeace and the like stood aside and refused to engage with it. Likewise the market where other real influences and power lie. [/quote]

Whoa! Greenpeace in its Rainbow Warrior modality, enjoyed eery similarity to Mr Arrafat.

Its early and original incarnation was a restrained form of direct action: more critical, its role was spreading the bad news about ecology and global pollution. Climate change, per se had no part. This is a later initiative. Greenpeace were anapolitical.

Surely, the market and its abuses are the core of the problem? One of the first lessons I was taught when I studied economic theory was that economics was amoral. A profit was a profit.

In its present iteration, the illusory "Free Market" as represented by the largest transnational corporations enjoy annual revenues larger than all but a few global states, yet no one votes for them! Thus they lack accountability. Which is where the concept of Holistic Stake Holder Theory comes in.

Thus the markets can be perceived as enjoying far too great an influence on current and future global events and far too much unfettered power.

And here is the real conflict and dichotomy with any serious volition to change environmental realities.

As a thirty year ecologist I would love to see a quantum shift in many areas; as a realist I fear that entrenched vested interests will preclude most.

The nonsense of Carbon Exchanges demonstrates just how the market dominates any honest move to amend the polluting dynamic.

 

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Sadly, I fear that the implication was that if Greenpeace has indeed become a political group (which cannot be denied as they have huge political influence in Germany for example), then the original ethos has been forgotten and passed over in exchange for political power.

In any case, Greenpeace and F of t Earth have discredited themselves of recent, by failing to accept the reality of Step Change against Paradigm Shift.

Porrit wants to ban cars and trucks. Nice.

 [/quote]

Greenpeace has always been a political group in the sense that it tries to influence public choices.  But it has never been a political party and tried to elect public officials.  There are both non-parliamentary politics with big and little non-governmental oraganisations (NGOs) and other civil society groups, and they there are parliamentary politics.  It is certaily true that at the local or regional or national level nearly all NGOs have to have relations with elected officials.  I just don't get the changes you are talking about,  what's new, or even what is the problem.  All NGOs try to have political influence, influencing public choices.  Even some groups in civil society do this, althought others  work on constructing alternative structures, without relating much to public officials.

Porrit is not, nor has he ever been, in Greenpeace, but maybe you didn't mean he is.  Might have just been a one off statement.  But I am curious where he said he wants to ban cars and trucks.  I always thought he was among the most moderate and hooked up of environmetalists. Very mild. That statement sounds pretty wild.  You got a source?

And, sorry to admit it, I have absolutely no idea what "Step Change against Paradigm Shift" means, how and where FOE and Greenpeace failed to accept it, and why.  Can you explain?  Merci.

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="Logan"]

Activism and politics surely are part of the same beast. I don’t know why you are constantly confused TV. Politicians and activists engaged the market for a variety of reasons. For example, seeking media publicity for a particular cause is engaging the market. Commercial endorsement is another. Activism and politics does not inhabit a separate world from the rest of us. It is part of the same capitalist process. Do you imagine that an activist who writes a book or makes a film on a particular subject is not engaging the market? I could write a worthy essay on this subject rather in line with your posts but I have not the time. Unfortunately for you and your philosophy the market rules. Long may it continue to give us all an opportunity to shine.[:D]

[/quote]

I do try to point out what is confusing.  Sorry I don't do it clearly enough for you to figure out what I mean.  One thing is sure, no one could accuse you of being confused.  It all quite simple and easy for you.  I have always said that it is impossible to live completely outside the capitalist market.  That's obvious.  Not many people have that goal either, although a very few try.  But I have tried to suggest to you that the market is very regulated, distorts the value of commodities, tries to commodify things that should (for ethical, moral, human, common sensical or political reasons) remain outside the market, and that nearly everyone does many things, often the most important things, outside the market/commodity relation.  I think you must agree with all that.  So the contemporary capitalist market (only one form of market of course) dominates, but does not "rule" in the sense that it has penetrated all spheres of life.  It tries, but it fails.  So far.  But I certainly admit that commodification is on the rise, and has been since the early nineteeth century at least.  But heck, Logan, it will always have opponents.  And someday, maybe, people might see how foolish commodification and the capitalist market are.  Then you'll be lonely.  But not yet.  You and your ilk are on top.

By the way, why do you make a distinction between activism and politics?  Being a political activist has always been quite normal to me.  I suppose you could be an "a-political" activist.  Or an in active politician.  I get confused because sometimes I don't htink you always see how others (me anyway) read your words.  What seems obviosu to you isnot to another.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="TreizeVents"] Greenpeace has always been a political group in the sense that it tries to influence public choices.  But it has never been a political party and tried to elect public officials.  There are both non-parliamentary politics with big and little non-governmental oraganisations (NGOs) and other civil society groups, and they there are parliamentary politics.  It is certaily true that at the local or regional or national level nearly all NGOs have to have relations with elected officials.  I just don't get the changes you are talking about,  what's new, or even what is the problem.  All NGOs try to have political influence, influencing public choices.  Even some groups in civil society do this, althought others  work on constructing alternative structures, without relating much to public officials. [/quote]

Changing consumers' points of view is surely not political? If it is, then the corollary is that market research, PR and advertising agencies are political. Clearly they are not.

Personally, I think this is where so many such organisations go wrong; they become embroiled in politics "because it's essential: and everyone else does"

As everyone who has had anything to with with politics and politicians knows, it is a an amoral process of continual trade offs, with the core message and perspective eventually being watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.

Unfortunately, most activists become politicians from a personal career move. Des Wilson of Shelter is a good example. Long gone are the rumpled sweaters: in came the well cut pinstripe suit!

Trouble is that today charity is a business: and a very big business indeed!

Same with pressure groups. Today's activist is tomorrow's TV news presenter. nd this is why in all probability, ecological groups won't achieve very much in real terms of quantifiable reference.

And this is also one of the problems with Climate Change; those involved, invariably wish to build a rep as well as an empire. This was Michael Chrichton's core point in the recent book I earlier mentioned.

[quote] Porrit is not, nor has he ever been, in Greenpeace, [/quote]  Didn't say he was!

Last time I saw him interviewed on TV - before he took on his new role -  his platform was banning cars.

[quote] And, sorry to admit it, I have absolutely no idea what "Step Change against Paradigm Shift" means, how and where FOE and Greenpeace failed to accept it, and why.  Can you explain?  Merci.
[/quote]

Step Change is doing things incrementally. Paradigm Shift means changing the paradigm (status quo if you like) overnight

I have not seen one cogent plan from any environmental or ecological group, which tabulates a sensible and "Do-able" incremental plan for amending energy processes.

Currently Government are becoming just as bad!

For example, Fat Two Jags  has constantly whittered on about public transport as have many others.

No one has actually bothered to do very much about new affordable provision of public transport, which it isn't actually anyway 'cos it's nearly all privatised now!.

Air travel in country is deeply criticised as hugely environmentally bad. No one bothers to compare the cost of train travel from London to Glasgow .v. Air travel, e.g. Same with the cost of driving btween London and Glasgow compared with the rail fare.

Of course, PM elect Brown is presently chosing the interior design and colour schemes for BlairForce One and Two. (Government has sought bids for two Airbus 320s, two weeks ago.).