MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...uty-devolution
Unfortunately time does not permit a forensic review but others may well choose to evaluate and report back ?
I think I am right in suggesting they are devolving powers to adjust / cut this tax BUT only in devolved areas ?
NI, Scotland and now the Republic Of Gtr Mancunia ?
Quite surprised to see reference to Northernpowerhouse in opening paragraphs of an APD doc !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget also suggested Tfn Transport For North which certainly has a nice ring and beats Tfl Transport For London.
Now all we want is a "FAIR" proportion of the cash, (not the same amount before all my supporters in the Eastend get the wrong idea just a fairer amount reflecting the size of the place).
Can only be a good idea to improve overall connectivity to MAN.
That said I agree with the election bluster Mr Tis but that stick to beat Mr Osborne just got bigger !
The more he reneges on promises the more the embarrassment.
Bear in mind he is lining himself up for PM so coming along saying I have done this , that and the other will sit well.
...................................................If he doesn't well as I said previous , down to the Heads office for a good thrashing after Latin !
Unfortunately time does not permit a forensic review but others may well choose to evaluate and report back ?
I think I am right in suggesting they are devolving powers to adjust / cut this tax BUT only in devolved areas ?
NI, Scotland and now the Republic Of Gtr Mancunia ?
Quite surprised to see reference to Northernpowerhouse in opening paragraphs of an APD doc !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget also suggested Tfn Transport For North which certainly has a nice ring and beats Tfl Transport For London.
Now all we want is a "FAIR" proportion of the cash, (not the same amount before all my supporters in the Eastend get the wrong idea just a fairer amount reflecting the size of the place).
Can only be a good idea to improve overall connectivity to MAN.
That said I agree with the election bluster Mr Tis but that stick to beat Mr Osborne just got bigger !
The more he reneges on promises the more the embarrassment.
Bear in mind he is lining himself up for PM so coming along saying I have done this , that and the other will sit well.
...................................................If he doesn't well as I said previous , down to the Heads office for a good thrashing after Latin !
Last edited by Bagso; 8th Jul 2015 at 16:09.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Airport passenger numbers soar - AGAIN - Manchester Evening News
June pronouncements from MAG.
--------------------------------------------------------
Frank, I have no issue with any MP supporting LHR as long as they can discuss the detail, and argue the point genuinely.
BUT you would have to be living on the moon not to think this was politics at its worse and nothing to do with facts.
June pronouncements from MAG.
--------------------------------------------------------
Frank, I have no issue with any MP supporting LHR as long as they can discuss the detail, and argue the point genuinely.
BUT you would have to be living on the moon not to think this was politics at its worse and nothing to do with facts.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-Prosperity Duty [APD]
Bagso - That APD consultation document you link to in post No.2389 is an excellent find.
I have to admit to some reservations concerning the proposals, however. It seems that the cost of any reduction in APD will have to be borne directly by local government (and not by the treasury). One must wonder whether bleeding-heart local councillors will have the desire to reduce or axe Anti-Prosperity Duty if the resulting revenue shortfall will have to be shouldered by other priority service areas such as social services, day centres and refuse collection. There is even a risk that councillors of certain political leanings may prefer to INCREASE the burden on travellers to fund their pet causes locally.
Unfortunately, many of the benefits to be drawn from axing Anti-Prosperity Duty accrue to the region's economy generally, and not directly to council funding. Local politicians may prefer an assured income-stream from taxing travellers rather than difficult-to-quantify improvements in the broader local economy.
I hope I'm being too cynical on this, but I have my doubts.
By the way, there is an option to provide feedback on the topic via a link provided in the consultation document. I am minded to raise this concern with them, not that I expect to get very far with it! Other regulars here may wish to express their opinions directly to the decision-makers as well?
I have to admit to some reservations concerning the proposals, however. It seems that the cost of any reduction in APD will have to be borne directly by local government (and not by the treasury). One must wonder whether bleeding-heart local councillors will have the desire to reduce or axe Anti-Prosperity Duty if the resulting revenue shortfall will have to be shouldered by other priority service areas such as social services, day centres and refuse collection. There is even a risk that councillors of certain political leanings may prefer to INCREASE the burden on travellers to fund their pet causes locally.
Unfortunately, many of the benefits to be drawn from axing Anti-Prosperity Duty accrue to the region's economy generally, and not directly to council funding. Local politicians may prefer an assured income-stream from taxing travellers rather than difficult-to-quantify improvements in the broader local economy.
I hope I'm being too cynical on this, but I have my doubts.
By the way, there is an option to provide feedback on the topic via a link provided in the consultation document. I am minded to raise this concern with them, not that I expect to get very far with it! Other regulars here may wish to express their opinions directly to the decision-makers as well?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 150 Likes
on
93 Posts
Shed
Already have direct to MP, some times they get a little blinkered, and you have to shine a little light in to show the out side of M25 view !
Regards
Mr Mac
Already have direct to MP, some times they get a little blinkered, and you have to shine a little light in to show the out side of M25 view !
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that Bagso is talking about generally rather than specifically about the SE issues.
From your London-centric viewpoint, Frank, you wouldn't be expected to know that public support by MPs for any developments and issues at Manchester has been sadly lacking in recent years. Mind you they haven't been opposing things either; just strangely silent compared to previous years.
From your London-centric viewpoint, Frank, you wouldn't be expected to know that public support by MPs for any developments and issues at Manchester has been sadly lacking in recent years. Mind you they haven't been opposing things either; just strangely silent compared to previous years.
Read my various posts, slowly if necessary: no indication of anti-North sentiments.
On the other hand, the case for Heathrow rwy expansion is unanswerable, which is why no coherent arguments are ever made against it.
Of course northern MPs should be supportive of Ringway, the northern hub, the "powerhouse", and sufficient infrastructure improvements to rebalance the UK economy, it doesn't or shouldn't stop them also being supportive of
Heathrow rwy expansion.
It's not either/or.
Frank, I have no issue with any MP supporting LHR as long as they can discuss the detail, and argue the point genuinely.
BUT you would have to be living on the moon not to think this was politics at its worse and nothing to do with facts.
BUT you would have to be living on the moon not to think this was politics at its worse and nothing to do with facts.
Indeed, but not so much real politics, more a case of running scared of NIMBYs.
Anti-Prosperity Duty [APD]
Bagso - That APD consultation document you link to in post No.2389 is an excellent find.
Bagso - That APD consultation document you link to in post No.2389 is an excellent find.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the case for Heathrow rwy expansion is unanswerable, which is why no coherent arguments are ever made against it.
No point tinkering with APD, scrap it now and get a massive boost to the economy!
I'm afraid Bagso, that's a touch nieve. It's water of a ducks back to Boy George. Like most of the others, a career politician. Broken promises and bluster will just be covered up with the latest set of promises.
TfGM can't even provide real time bus information ( they've been working on it for 10 years), let alone an effective strategy
As for the airport, well it does best when it just quietly plods on, out of the spotlight. The more fuss made, the more opposition you are likely to get- careful what you wish for.
MAG do need to remove a finger and enhance the current passenger experience and not just sit back and wait 10 years for the new terminal. (T3 springs to mind)
Incidentally,has anyone here ever had a proper response from a customer service Manager?( about anything)
TfGM can't even provide real time bus information ( they've been working on it for 10 years), let alone an effective strategy
As for the airport, well it does best when it just quietly plods on, out of the spotlight. The more fuss made, the more opposition you are likely to get- careful what you wish for.
MAG do need to remove a finger and enhance the current passenger experience and not just sit back and wait 10 years for the new terminal. (T3 springs to mind)
Incidentally,has anyone here ever had a proper response from a customer service Manager?( about anything)
So it's really all about a competition between 'rival' groups of plane spotters is it?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguments made against LHR R3 on the grounds of cost are entirely coherent. Expansion there makes sense operationally, but that is not the whole story. Value for money must be considered where a substantial contribution from the national exchequer will be required to make it happen.
(2) most of the cost would be borne by the private sector;
(3) some of the public sector costs (i.e. surface access infrastructure) will be required even if there is no third rwy, with a third rwy, LHR Ltd would probably contribute, perhaps for M25 and A4 tunnels.
Perhaps not so coherent after all.
To be fair, Edinburgh is a more important city than Manchester
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps not so coherent after all.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently Volgar dnepr/air bridge cargo have created a UK subsidy, and will base a B747-8F at MAN for cargo routes to the U.S, subject to getting its AOC.
AirBridgeCargo eyes UK routes with Volga-Dnepr company
Quite an interesting turn that we once had a thriving pure cargo business to China, but, it's now the USA that sees more dedicated cargo flights with Lufthansa and now this venture!
A very welcome boost if this comes off!
AirBridgeCargo eyes UK routes with Volga-Dnepr company
Quite an interesting turn that we once had a thriving pure cargo business to China, but, it's now the USA that sees more dedicated cargo flights with Lufthansa and now this venture!
A very welcome boost if this comes off!