I have not advocated slashing tourism altogether SH. Just that we look at different models of tourist management. For the record - it is possible to get to Spain by train. 3 hours from London to Paris and then a further 3 from Paris to Irun. That would land you in the nice part of Spain - mysteriously the Atlantic coastline manages to live without tourism and supports a fair number of decent sized towns. What I object to is people who think that cheap flying is a human right - flight prices are not appropriate to the distances involved, and I think even you can see that. As for second homes in tourist areas - the jury is out on that one. Yes it brings some money into the region, but also house prices don't reflect the income of locals which is problematic. Also if whole areas have mostly houses which are only lived in for 4 months of the year then vital local services will be cut back or disappear entirely. This would work out ok. with a combination of increased stamp duty, higher council tax and local occupancy clauses. You have said that I am being flippant about people's jobs - do you want to wait until vast areas of Spain have become uninhabitable through desertification - what jobs would there be then ? This leads onto another important aspect of tourism being the need for water - how many litres are needed for every one tourist ? Spain has a chronic water shortage - yet they find enough to water all the golf courses for the tourists ?
If the government had a policy of rescuing badly run businesses it would simply encourage further unsustainable risk taking. The government's response was sensible in the circumstances, it will help rescue those involved without being seen to intervene in dead ducks. Other similar companies are trading successfully in these districts without the problem of excessive debt. What is certain restricting tourism, as suggested, will do permanent damage to the lives of those that live in Southern Europe. Living in France as you are I suppose the prospect of struggling on with a mountain of debt is not considered a problem.
The above train journey will be of absolutely no interest to the average UK working class family and is also not practical. You advocate denying the proletariat the chance to enjoy foreign travel at a reasonable cost. This idea will ensure travel is only available to the much better off. Have you thought this through comrade?
You should read the material brought in by Yorkie in post 843. I quote '70% of UK flights are made by a wealthy 15% of the population with 57% not flying abroad at all' - I do not think it is what you call the proletariat that is the prime offender SH.
Just seen the solution on the Hull City forum ! You should drink more cider in order to increase demand ensuring that more apple trees will be planted
It's great isn't it. When I was little if you did something naughty you could tell the Priest who'd tell you to say a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers and the slate was clean. Now you can drive a petrol glugging tank, plant a tree to say you're sorry and it's all good. One does wonder
I hope that the first thing that someone hands the PM when he lands back in the UK is a spade. He can then go and plant a tree, or clean a ditch out.
The vast majority of these flights by the indicated small percentage are bound to be for business reasons. Any curtailment would undoubtedly damage the UK economy especially now we have an excellent opportunity to increase business outside of the EU. It is totally inaccurate to describe the 15% of frequent flyers as wealthy . The information is based on an out of date government survey from 2014. You are mixing two reports with an inaccurate quote from Ken Loach. You have always promoted zero tolerance for air travel this I presume includes Joe Bloggs's annual family bash to Benidorm?
The first thing is that the use of Skype video conferences is reducing the need for business trips - the second is that many of these trips are unnecessary. As long as Joe Bloggs's annual family bash in Benidorm remains that, ie annual, then it is not such a concern. What is a concern is people who qualify as frequent flyers - these should pay an increasing tax for each flight taken within one year. I do not have zero tolerance for flyers but am concerned that they are doing what they do for often ridiculous cut down, subsidized, prices which bear no relation to the miles travelled. I don't generally think that there is much to be gained by pointing the finger at one group after the other casting blame - this divides people and produces enemies. We need to bring people together and admit that we are all to blame in some way, but all share a collective responsibility. If I go pointing the finger at the plane flyer - why stop there. Do I point the finger at those taking luxury cruise journeys ? Or meat eaters ? Or those who drive a petrol guzzling SUV ? Or those who buy mostly imported foodstuffs ? As long as you keep pointing fingers then one day, someone will do that back, because none of us are completely free of blame. The problem is with Greta Thumberg is that we now have a generation of 16 year olds pointing the finger at us. What can I say ? Why should I listen to someone (not Greta) who uses their mother as a 24 hour taxi service, sees a study year in the USA as normal, buys clothes on a weekly basis, and always needs the newest I Pad to tell them where the nearest Macdonalds is ? I'm describing here the typically affluent 17 year old of today in Germany or Sweden - no they can't point fingers. I can't either because my smoking is a problem for some people - I'm also a meat eater. What is important is not pointing fingers but rather making alternatives more attractive.
I am not someone who wishes to tell people how they should spend their money, but it seems perfectly fair to me that those who wish to take more than one flight a year pay for their choice. If people wish to ignore the produce that is on their doorstep, and buy something from the other side of the world, then they should pay extra for it. I have thousands of sheep in the fields around me, but hardly ever eat it because it goes mainly for export to other EU countries, and what is left is at silly prices. My choice, despite the fact that I enjoy some roast leg of lamb. UK lamb is never seen here because it is too expensive, but Spanish lamb is cheaper than from the UK. Cheapest of all is frozen NZ lamb. Without wishing to affect the NZ trade it seems bizarre that something from the other side of the world can be so cheap. Not as good, it is almost something different, but it comes down to choice, and I don't buy it. Weather permitting I grow as many of my vegetables as I can. Should I really say the effort is not worth it, and buy my French beans that have been grown in Africa or South America? I believe that somethings such as travel and imported food should attract taxation to compensate for the effects on the planet, but then it comes down to the individual if they are willing to pay.
Presumably when the government correctly turned down the opportunity to waste taxpayers funds to invest in Thomas Cook it knew about the upcoming investigation into TC's auditors conduct. Critics claim the company used controversial accounting techniques to boost a key measure of profits.
Haven't read this gem yet, but it would not surprise me to see more underhand accounting methods being used in the UK. When you read about taxpayers money being given to the lady friend of the current PM not coming to light for several years, there is clearly an unhealthy undercurrent of shady deals going on. Environmental monies from the EU being withheld from the people it was designed to go to, farm subsidies going to the largest farmers on time and the small man waiting months to get what is due to him, all smacks of government bending the rules. If government can get away with it, private companies will do the same.
It is weird you seem to have a desperate need to always knock the UK whilst seeing your adopted country through rose tinted bi-folds. You are clearly only fooling yourself.
Just what are you complaining about. Are we not supposed to make any critical comments of subjects you find embarrassing? You raised the subject, about dodgy practices. I see that the subject is to be discussed in Westminster today. I don't expect any clarity. At least I mentioned the environment, the subject of the thread. Please do your bit to keep it on track.
I am complaining about your constant, and frankly boring, attempts on all threads to knock the UK. Your time would be better spent trying to highlight, and hopefully improve, the many problems facing your adopted homeland.
