New car TravelTax

Rasher,

I think Sarah has it wrong (as she occasionally does - note the Pied Wagpie or recent conversations. The petition is at 750,000 now and they're hoping for the 1M point. I've been trying for the last week to sign the petition but cannot acces the website. Seems hundreds of people want to sign and the server can't cope!

We are, of course, already paying tax by the mile. It's called fuel duty. You drive more, you pay more. You drive an uneconomical car you use more fuel and pay more tax. Simple, fair and effective.

The motorist is an easy target and is being exploited/robbed, and it hit's the lower income families the most.

Ian

The other unfair 'car tax' is the vehicle excise licence. My automatic two-litre engined car is in the highest bracket. I'm retired, so my 'gas guzzler' does realtively few miles.

How can that be fair?

The Police spend a huge amount of time and resources targeting VEL evaders. Why not scrap the VEL and put the duty on petrol?

Very few individuals nick petrol, compared to the huge numbers of people not having VELs.

John.

quote:

The Police spend a huge amount of time and resources targeting VEL evaders.

Do they?

Round my way the DVLA do that sort of thing the majority of time now...

quote:

The motorist is an easy target and is being exploited/robbed

Perhaps expect more letter bombs/direct action then..?

I hope you are not suggesting that I am the perpetrator

So the Government are now going to allow 2% of the population to decide policy are they? Bollocks. Show me the link where they'll drop it once it gets to the ludicrously low figure of 750.000. Furthermore are only the 50% of the population with internet access going to be given disproportionate influence. I think not! I suspect that as the site is quite clearly a Beta test the petitions are tests of response and nothing to do with actually determining policy. What the site actually says is that petitions with more than 100 signatures will get a written response. I bet the second word of that response will be "off".

We've had this discussion on the other side and I kind of see your point. A one-million-signature petition, letter bombs etc may suggest that there is a good chance that the weight of poublic opinion may be against the government's plans to restrict our freedom of movement. This is a basic human right I was reminded of when visiting Berlin last week. People lost their lives in pursuit of this right trying to escape over the wall.

A government concerned for its own future in elections would at least put such an important issue to a referendum which I've no doubt they would lose.

What we are seeing now in terms of letter bombs is the tip of the iceberg compared to the mass rebellion (including refusing to pay the monthly bills and/or have the trackers fitted in the first place as well as direct action against government targets) that will inevitably occur if the government actually introduces the movement-tracking scheme against the will of the electorate. If the government cares about its future electability it will not bury its head in the sand.

Unless of course the abandonment of democracy is on the cards.

Allowing tiny unrepresentative self interest groups using non universal means of communication to determine policy would truly be an abandonment of democracy. If rhe electorate are against it, and you have no way of knowing whether they are not, then a Government must take notice of the MAJORITY view.

Ok, I'll use a doctor analogy. The sample of respondants to that particular petition is abnormally high. The doctor needs to rule out a serious problem so undertakes further, more conclusive tests. S/he need to prove that there isn't a problem at this early stage rather than sit back and wait until it's too late.

If the government is serious about road pricing (and democracy) it should hold a referendum on the issue or wait until after the next general election having included the road pricing plans in its manifesto. The enormous response to the road pricing petition, whilst it shouldn't be treated as conclusive proof that the majority of the electorate is against it, should be taken seriously and prompt a more accurate and credibile evaluation of public opinion on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Allowing tiny unrepresentative self interest groups using non universal means of communication to determine policy would truly be an abandonment of democracy. If rhe electorate are against it, and you have no way of knowing whether they are not, then a Government must take notice of the MAJORITY view.

Interesting, but that doesn't seem to be how it works any longer, if you take the example of the present congestion charge zone extension into West London. That was passed on the basis that it was part of Livingstones election manifesto, and he assumed a mandate to introduce it, given that he was elected. It's hardly a surprise that when most residents, business & shop owners in West London were actually asked there view, there were opposed. Not that mere details like that bother Livingstone or TfL.

Was it part of his manifesto?
Was he elected?
If yes to both then the MINORITY will just have to lump it. Its called democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Was it part of his manifesto?
Was he elected?
If yes to both then the MINORITY will just have to lump it. Its called democracy.

So do you mean in a democratically elected assembly, the winning party does not have to put an issue to consultation, or to a vote, if it is included in it's pre-election manifesto ?

quote:

So do you mean in a democratically elected assembly, the winning party does not have to put an issue to consultation, or to a vote, if it is included in it's pre-election manifesto ?

I would say yes. If it's in the manifesto then governments getting into power are only doing what it sez on the tin.

We can't have a referendum on every single issue - that's why we have a parliament, but something as fundamental as giving up our freedom of movement should be put to a referendum or another general election.

bob,

If I understand correctly you are in favour of road pricing and believe that the majority of people in this country agree with you.

Steven You'd be completely wrong.
I am totally opposed to tiny minority, usually self appointed, representative groups thinking that they hold the moral high ground and that everyone else should do what they want.
I am totally opposed to the lunatics that promote civil disobedience over any issue that they feel strongly about.
I do not believe, as posters on here seem to, that an elected UK government would frame laws determined by responses to e-polls
I strongly believe that a proper consultation about road pricing should occur where everybody has the opportunity to air their views and where the strength of the population's views will become apparent.

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Allowing tiny unrepresentative self interest groups using non universal means of communication to determine policy would truly be an abandonment of democracy. If rhe electorate are against it, and you have no way of knowing whether they are not, then a Government must take notice of the MAJORITY view.

Democracy - hmm, surely politicians are biggest unrepresentative self interest group.

Voting is a waste of time - whoever I vote for the Government always wins and they are always the same as far as I can tell.

Mind you we don't have a Stuckist candidate around here.

Needless to say, I'm against yet another tax - we pay too much in any case.

Seeing as it is suggested to replace fuel and road tax, and that charges would not have to be as draconian as sugegested to have an effect on congestion it would be good to have all the facts to hand before making a judgement.

Does anyone know / have links to:
- Current levels of duty on tax/diesel
- Current levels of road tax
- The governments suggested pricing model (They must have one)

/dl

New taxes have been introduced before to replace an existing tax, only for the reality to be that the old tax remains and the new ends up as an additional tax. I can't think of an example right now, but I know it's happened before. I just wouldn't want to give them an inch because I don't trust them.

Just had my e-mail from the PM, thought I would cut'n'paste so anyone who did not get one can see what #10 are saying:

"Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.

I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair"

You can reduce congestion in towns and cities by getting rid of the bus lanes and let cars use them. Why should what are all now Private Companies running the buses have their own piece of road. On motorways some countries open up the hard shoulder as another lane at congested times. Get rid of the tolls on the Dartford Crossing as it is only because people have to stop and pay the toll that you get congestion. There are 3 ideas for Tony to mull over and they cost next to nothing.
Is he a member of this Forum or should I email him direct???????

And these private companies have a vested interest in lobbying the government to make congestion worse for car users.

The lobby is called Transport 2000.

The thing that occurs to me is that there doesn't seem to be too much hard information available on Road Pricing other than the latest media induced panic.

It might be the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since, well something pretty bad, but where are the facts?

I do think there is a tendency by the media to forget that there is a world outside of London, and I don't think it helps to use examples that show someone paying £400 to drive up to see a relative in Liverpool as I doubt that is going to be the case.

As to the percentage of the population who signed it being 2-3% or whatever it is, I think 2 million signatures is one hell of a lot considering it's 2 million motorists (presumably non-motorists would not bother to vote?) in the UK who have Internet access, who heard about the petition, who bothered to take the time to go and sign it etc.

As an illustration of what a crap idea e-polls are I voted for each of my many email addresses, the final time as Mickey Mouse.
Mickey got his reply from Tony.

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
As an illustration of what a crap idea e-polls are I voted for each of my many email addresses, the final time as Mickey Mouse.
Mickey got his reply from Tony.

That does put it in a slightly different light especially if the voting process can be automated or scripted.

My gut reaction is that I'm against the idea, but it's not worth the current hysteria given the time-scales involved, and if last weeks media induced panic was true the planet will have melted before it's introduced so why worry.

Big brother is watching your every move. That's problem one.

If this was really a measure to reduce congestion then we should be seeing significant work being done to improve public transport. That's problem two.

It's a government it project. That's problem three.

How many more civil servants will be needed to administer this? That's problem four.

This could be Blair's poll tax.