Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

VM392 – Road Resurfacing Motion 2016 watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with this motion?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    46.81%
    On the contrary, No
    27.66%
    Abstain
    25.53%

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    VM392 – Road Resurfacing Motion 2016, TSR Labour Party
    This House believes that more money should be invested in road resurfacing by the Government..

    At the moment, local councils are only given enough money for major roads and many of the resurfacing measures that do take place are only short-term.

    The UK has the fifth biggest economy in the world yet many of its roads are poorly maintained and most of the resurfacing techniques currently used are unsustainable. It is crucial for us to have better infrastructure if we are to develop further as a country and one way this can be achieved is by the Government investing significantly more money in road resurfacing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    As SoS for Communities and Local Govt, it's probably a good idea to give a reply to this...

    While the potholes are a problem and current techniques are not good in the long term. I do not think these problems merit significant investment into the roads.

    1) businesses are not going to stop investing because of some potholes on local roads.
    2) we need to encourage people to use public transport more, not just because of traffic but environmental implications too.
    3) more money has to be diverted into areas under bigger pressures (NHS, schools etc), I'm not denying there isn't a problem but are these potholes and poor techniques decreasing local investment? No. Are they causing widespread havoc across the nation? No.

    Billions of pounds should not be spent to prevent a chip in Dave's windscreen
    Spoiler:
    Show
    after all, Autoglass repair for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jamestg)
    As SoS for Communities and Local Govt, it's probably a good idea to give a reply to this...

    While the potholes are a problem and current techniques are not good in the long term. I do not think these problems merit significant investment into the roads.

    1) businesses are not going to stop investing because of some potholes on local roads.
    2) we need to encourage people to use public transport more, not just because of traffic but environmental implications too.
    3) more money has to be diverted into areas under bigger pressures (NHS, schools etc), I'm not denying there isn't a problem but are these potholes and poor techniques decreasing local investment? No. Are they causing widespread havoc across the nation? No.

    Billions of pounds should not be spent to prevent a chip in Dave's windscreen
    Spoiler:
    Show
    after all, Autoglass repair for free
    This is more than just a few potholes though. This is about repairing and maintaining our infrastructure, some of which is simply unacceptable at the moment. Investment in our roads now will provide a plethora of benefits in the long run including more routes for HGVs, which will help the flow of trade, and encourage more people to go cycling, something which I'm sure you'll agree, reduces harmful emissions. The impact of poor quality roads may not be as noticeable as a failing healthcare system but even so, they are still costing the country money. We're not saying you will have to divert money away from the NHS or schools, just be a little looser with your spending. Reaching a budget surplus should be put second when our infrastructure in its current state is quite frankly inadequate.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This is more than just a few potholes though. This is about repairing and maintaining our infrastructure, some of which is simply unacceptable at the moment. Investment in our roads now will provide a plethora of benefits in the long run including more routes for HGVs, which will help the flow of trade, and encourage more people to go cycling, something which I'm sure you'll agree, reduces harmful emissions. The impact of poor quality roads may not be as noticeable as a failing healthcare system but even so, they are still costing the country money. We're not saying you will have to divert money away from the NHS or schools, just be a little looser with your spending. Reaching a budget surplus should be put second when our infrastructure in its current state is quite frankly inadequate.
    Apologies for the late reply.

    Improving the roads will not encourage cycling. If you want to encourage cycling, increase the fantastic cycle network that we have currently. Where is the evidence that poor quality roads are costing the country money? I doubt businesses would stop investing just because of a slightly dodgy ring road.

    Spending more on infrastructure projects like this, with very little to no return will simply move us further away from a budget surplus. This motion is unbelievably counterproductive. If you want further investment, you need to make doing business cheaper and easier. Small incentives like this will not help. Only with this further investment, can the government reach a budget surplus and thus money can be spent on more long-term projects like this motion proposes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Apologies for the late reply.

    Improving the roads will not encourage cycling. If you want to encourage cycling, increase the fantastic cycle network that we have currently. Where is the evidence that poor quality roads are costing the country money? I doubt businesses would stop investing just because of a slightly dodgy ring road.

    Spending more on infrastructure projects like this, with very little to no return will simply move us further away from a budget surplus. This motion is unbelievably counterproductive. If you want further investment, you need to make doing business cheaper and easier. Small incentives like this will not help. Only with this further investment, can the government reach a budget surplus and thus money can be spent on more long-term projects like this motion proposes.
    No worries

    The trouble with investing heavily in cycle lanes is that there are still quite a few people that would choose to use the road for some reason which I can't understand but they do. If roads were resurfaced, you would improve the experience for both cars and bicycles and you would save having to invest significant money in building cycle lanes.

    Poor infrastructure will particularly affect whether multinational companies decide to invest in our country or another one. Let's say a major company like Toyota wants to create a new complex in Europe. If it is choosing between Germany and the UK, the quality of infrastructure could have an impact on its decision. The lack of investment could have serious economic impacts in the long run.

    This is why I question whether it is worth achieving a budget surplus in the next few years. If we invest in our infrastructure now, it will economically help us in the long run. Short term measures such as filling in the largest potholes on the busiest roads is ineffective and inefficient. Also, if you are going to link this to the budget surplus, I would question why the Government plans on having an annual Defence budget of £39bn by 2020. Surely it is better to improve our infrastructure than purchasung a few new submarines?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Ayes to the right: 22
    Noes to the left: 13
    Abstentions: 12

    The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!

    Turnout: 94%
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 25, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.