Pay as you drive

[ECA]

So apparently a direct tax on fuel ISNT paying for how much you use your car?

Well fuck me sideways with a broom - oh wait, thats EXACTLY what labour are trying to do.

 

[Tom]

More like trying to pay for the Galileo system.

I'll be first in line to tell them to shove that broom where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[throdgrain]

PayAsYouBreath is only a matter of time

 

[Damini]

PayAsYouBreath is only a matter of time

Well, paying when you stop is already in place.

I got a letter from Tony the other day, because I signed the anti ID card petition. I like the idea of these petitions. It's very old school, Mr Monarchy Blair, how we disease riddled peasants are allowed to approach your castle once a year to petition you with our wants and fears.

Then all that happens is if the petition picks up enough momentum, Tony e-mails you to tell you why you are wrong.

Inspired. Democratic process at it's most shiningly brilliant.

 

[Skyler]

We need Conservatives!

They ain't perfect either but they have to be better than Labour

 

[Damini]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax

Last day to sign up so HRH Blair can personally e-mail you and tell you why you are wrong, and he's going to go ahead with it anyway.

 

[Skyler]

It got a mention on Top Gear too, so another 7million people saw it

 

[Whipped]

Got my response from the PM today explaning that, after careful consideration, they were going to do whatever they damn well pleased

 

[MYstIC G]

It's dead simple. They were gonna raise cash by cranking up fuel duty, but that drew too many protests and a rake of media attention, so now we're gonna get whacked this way instead. We're all gonna get charged more for driving somehow and at some time, just like everything else goes up.

 

[Dukat]

I honestly thought the part about them putting a tracking device on your car was a (bad) joke.

Are they really going to get away with it?

 

[Draylor]

I honestly thought the part about them putting a tracking device on your car was a (bad) joke.

Most folks carry a tracking device with them everywhere these days anyway, whats the big deal?

Sure its not that accurate, but thatll improve with time.

 

[Skyler]

Well it got 1,798,278 signatures, which isn't a bad number.

 

[psyco]

I honestly thought the part about them putting a tracking device on your car was a (bad) joke.

Are they really going to get away with it?

the thing i don't get is why can't? you just leave it at home when you go drive

 

[Whipped]

There's a part in there about spending 2.5 billion on Buses and 4 Billion on trains. Big fucking deal, I expect we spend that much in Iraq in a little under a week.

 

[Raven]

its a complete waste of time, all they do with these petition things is to try and show that democracy works. all it goes to show is they do whatever the fuck they like because they know rather than changing to conservative from labour, most people simply wont bother voting.

vote conservative and get these useless fucking morons out of our parliament. yes i know the conservatives are far from perfect but they surely cant be as bad as labour.

 

[Tom]

I would much rather have a small government that serves the people (Tory), than a large government that serves itself (Labour).

Despite Labour moving to the right, they're still a tax-and-spend government, and always will be.

 

[rynnor]

vote conservative and get these useless fucking morons out of our parliament. yes i know the conservatives are far from perfect but they surely cant be as bad as labour.

Conservatives were just as bad by the end of the 3rd term - why vote at all if it achieves nothing - people died to get the vote but that was in the hope that power would be shared by the people - they died for nothing it seems.

The whole system needs to be changed - no point voting for a different set of corrupt short-termist spin doctor lead assholes - nothing will change.

 

[nath]

I would much rather have a small government that serves the people (Tory), than a large government that serves itself (Labour).

At least that's supposedly one of the key differences between left and right - but in reality do you honestly think it'd be like that with the tories? (Before you say it, I'm not sticking up for labour - I've got no love for them).

 

[Skyler]

I think the main thing we should learn from history is to never give anyone a second term, and if they do get it make it a tight win not a landslide victory.

It's a shame other parties don't have a look in, it really is a two horse race and I don't see that ever changing.

 

[throdgrain]

At least that's supposedly one of the key differences between left and right - but in reality do you honestly think it'd be like that with the tories? (Before you say it, I'm not sticking up for labour - I've got no love for them).

Ive been in opposition all of my life. Always voted LAbour, becuase I beleived that the inherrent ideal behind the party was to help everyone equally.
These last years of goverment though have shown me my mistake. They want to control us , not help us. Fine if you play the game but if not you're in trouble.
Conservative government isnt perfect either (understatement of the century!) but I will surely vote for them next time to get rid of this creed of pseudo-socialist totalitarianism.

(That sounded good ay!)

 

[Tom]

At least that's supposedly one of the key differences between left and right - but in reality do you honestly think it'd be like that with the tories? (Before you say it, I'm not sticking up for labour - I've got no love for them).

I do. People are ingrained now to thinking that tax cuts are somehow a bad thing. But time and again its been proven in just about all countries that lower taxes = higher revenue, because you're allowing the economy to grow without too much restraint.

Now I know that the Tories have made mistakes, such as the minimum wage, or social inclusion, but in general I agree wholeheartedly with their principles.

Say 'Margaret Thatcher' out loud and most people would assume you're going to say something negative about her. IMO she made a lot of extremely brave and painful decisions that helped save this country. Not all of them were correct, but I think the mass unemployment was a necessary evil that our economy had to suffer before becoming competitive again.

Labour have realised this, one of the first VIP visitors to Downing St after Blair got in was Maggie! He is a great admirer of her.


I genuinely believe that a Tory government will seek to reduce taxes, to reduce the civil service, get rid of quangos, cut red tape, and genuinely make this country a better place.

Maggie had it right in her often misquoted 'there is no such thing as society' speech. Read it in context, and shes absolutely correct. Give people too much of a safety net, and they come to rely on it. Remove that net, and they work harder to not fall off the rope.

 

[MYstIC G]

vote conservative and get these useless fucking morons out of our parliament. yes i know the conservatives are far from perfect but they surely cant be as bad as labour.

Clearly you missed the point.

Statement: A can't be as bad as B surely?

where A is a political party in government and B is its main opponent.

They're ALL wankers.

 

[Damini]

Most folks carry a tracking device with them everywhere these days anyway, whats the big deal?

Okay, brace yourself for a long tyrade.

THIS is the big deal.

There are 10 million uninsured, un taxed, an MOTed cars on the road. Taking action on this would instantly reduce congestion, increase the amount of revenue recieved to work on public transport, improving the roads, not to mention improving the morale of law abiding citizens and removing potentially dangerous vehicles and drivers from the roads. An uninsured car is far less likely to stop in case of an accident, or report it, so you could very well also see a decrease in hit and runs as well.

The government could quite easily invest in alternative systems (that wouldn't swell it's coffers) to tackle the issue of congestion, including incentives for working from home, staggered work/school starts, the shifting to a mid week weekend for some workers.

Currently, all this system offers is the potential to increase the financial burden on law abiding drivers, drivers who already pay vast amount of tax on fuel, as well as road tax. Talks of taking this measure to subsequently reduce other revenue such as road tax are currently just that, talks. Hypotheticals thrown up to try and stem the outrage.

Millions of pounds of uncollected fines are abandoned each year simply because the car in mention has foreign number plates. Collect this money, and use it to improve the roads and public transport.

Public transport is at the moment unpleasant, and over priced. If you look at other countries, there public transport is far cheaper. £4 for one stop on the tube? £400 for a train journey up north? £8 on the bus from Canters to Whitsable? Public transport is hardly an alluring alternative.

If the congestion charge remains in place, people will pay for the priveledge of having a car on the roads, pay for the fuel they drive, pay for access to London, and then pay per mile of London they travel. Way to hammer business.

How will we be able to monitor what we're being charged? Will there be, like a taxi, a little device on the dashboard totting up costs as we go? Will it arrive as a bill at the end of the month, and we're just obliged to find the money from somewhere afterwards? Petrol tax works because you pay as you go. If you can't afford to put the petrol in, you don't drive. Simple as. This bill could see people landed with bills they can't afford to meet, and with that comes the associated risks to business and to families. What will happen if you can't pay that month? Will you be banned from driving? Will these bills just continue totting up?

What protection will there be in place for the driver if you suspect that what you are being charged is inaccurate? How can you prove you didn't drive down this road at 8.40 in the morning? How can you prove it was at ten o'clock instead, allowing you to pay less? How will you prove you took the scenic route instead? Will we need to buy a second kit for monitoring purposes?

Once this system is in place, what powers will we have to prevent price hikes?

What will prevent unscrupulous drivers disabling their monitoring system?

What fucking right does this government have to monitor me everywhere I go?

Anyway, here are my predictions. They will introduce this sytem on a voluntary basis in ten areas. Because the people signing up will be volunteers, they will already be predisposed to agree with this system. Cue the inevitable questionnaire, which shockingly finds 90% of all people who tested this system approved, which will give them the green light to roll this out officially in those trial areas. It won't be started nationally all at once, because the level of people who refused would make it unmaneagable. So, isolated pockets, where people who refuse can be easily singled out, pressured, and if necessary, made an example of. It will then expand, in stages, to cover the whole country.

Well, I tell you right now that I'm going to kick up one hell of a fuss if they try to get my car done.

 

[Tom]

All correct.

And I'm buying a petrol powered angle grinder for the day.

 

[`mongoose]

I'm about to say something I never thought I'd say.

Next election I'm voting whoever has the best chance of getting these goons out of power. The colossal arrogance in the email I recieved from that patronising twat was sickening.

I do believe that as a country we need to do something to reduce congestion and the numbers of cars on the road, but I'd like to see a proper plan in place for where my tax will actually go.

I don't care about being tracked at all tbh - there's already ways and means for me to be tracked enough for another device to not matter. It's the bullshit planning that get's thrown around - "we'll spend billions on buses" what? why? We privatised the fuckers - them giving private companies billions is a colossal mistake as you can guarrantee the people using it won't actually see the benefit of it.

The worst thing about all of this is that it will hit the low-income earners the worst. high fliers with the chelsea tractors that the media moans about so much won't give a fuck cos it's not going to cost them as much proportionally as the poor bastard teacher/ support worker/ shop assistant on between 8 and 20k a year. They'll earn too much for any form of benefit and too little to be able to pay this.

m

 

[psyco]

I'm about to say something I never thought I'd say.

Next election I'm voting whoever has the best chance of getting these goons out of power. The colossal arrogance in the email I recieved from that patronising twat was sickening.

I do believe that as a country we need to do something to reduce congestion and the numbers of cars on the road, but I'd like to see a proper plan in place for where my tax will actually go.

I don't care about being tracked at all tbh - there's already ways and means for me to be tracked enough for another device to not matter. It's the bullshit planning that get's thrown around - "we'll spend billions on buses" what? why? We privatised the fuckers - them giving private companies billions is a colossal mistake as you can guarrantee the people using it won't actually see the benefit of it.

The worst thing about all of this is that it will hit the low-income earners the worst. high fliers with the chelsea tractors that the media moans about so much won't give a fuck cos it's not going to cost them as much proportionally as the poor bastard teacher/ support worker/ shop assistant on between 8 and 20k a year. They'll earn too much for any form of benefit and too little to be able to pay this.

m

ooo... post the letter

 

[Damini]

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

There you go.

 

[Damini]

And here is the spoilers version.

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the
Downing Street website. Your optimism that it would make a difference genuinely amuses us.

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. That is just a rather jolly side effect. 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, though honestly, if it doesn't then it doesn't matter in the slighest. 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. By further, I mean, read our opinions, and hopefully educate yourself as to why you are so sickeningly wrong.

blah

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad, mmmmkay. 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 (of course, ignoring the monumental increases in the population that would factor into that). 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. See that! 1000 officers! Each one of them with the power, mentally, to stare at a traffic jam and make it evaporate, leaving behind only melted shards of metal, and charred bone fragments.

blah

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.

THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. LOOK INTO MY EYES, NOT AROUND MY EYES, LOOK INTO MY EYES. AND YOU'RE UNDER.

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. Tackling congestion by the mass harvesting of massive amounts of beautiful, beautiful, completely coincedental, money.

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. Please notice my use of the word could, cough, GET OUT CLAUSE, cough. 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, in this completely made up hypothetical situation I just totally made up. 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, before we remind them how utterly wrong they are and ignore everything mentioned, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, as long as you understand that by debate, we mean droning monologue where in we refuse to listen to any other opinion bar our own, so that we can build a consensus around the best
way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. And then ignore it. 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

 

[Skyler]

Get rid of the untaxed cars gets my vote. These are the ones that often end up killing people, having drunk drivers and getting away with it because their car can't be traced since they don't pay any tax or insurance on it.

Perhaps they should look at why everyone wants to drive and doesn't want to walk in the street or get on public transport. Personally I like the Tube, but I wouldn't go on it late at night or in certain areas at all. Buses are even worse, less observation and more potential for bad things to happen, I'd not go on a bus during any evening time at all if I can help it.

As for train journeys to Scotland and the like, many years ago Top Gear bought cars for £100 and drove them to Manchester and back purely to test if they could do it cheaper than a train ride with more luxury, and of course they did. Then we have this whole "aeroplanes are polluting the environment", maybe they are but at least they are faster and cheaper than trains to get to most places.

No amount of money or tax will save the environment. Only a ridiculous level of tax that at least half the country cannot afford at all would get rid of congestion on the roads, and that would only be temporary before the protests and riots started.

Look at logical alternatives Mr Blair, you have a brain most probably, why can you never see the actual solution to problems.

 

[Damini]

Look at logical alternatives Mr Blair, you have a brain most probably, why can you never see the actual solution to problems.

That's making the assumption that the problems he wants to solve are one and the same as the problems he says he's trying to solve.