Downing Street Says » Road Charging Petition

Asked what happens to petitions on the Downing Street website, the PMOS replied that they became part of the policy process and part of the overall context in which decisions were taken. He added that they were a welcome addition to the ability of citizens to communicate directly with government. There was no axiomatic process in which a petition would be submitted and the government then agreed, that was not the way it worked.

Asked if the government accepted that it was losing the argument on road pricing, the PMOS replied that the government accepted that there was an argument that had to be made on road pricing. The consequences of doing nothing would lead to an increase in congestion of 25% in less than a decade. We were working with 10 local areas as they developed proposals for local road pricing schemes, that would be a pilot, but this was a process that would take some time. They had been asked to come back with proposals by next July, but there would then be a further process of consultation beyond that. It was an issue where we were working with local authorities to improve the flow of traffic, working to provide extra roads, and working on railways for example, but there was still a problem with congestion. Therefore that was why we were looking at his area.

Asked if the Prime Minister was dismayed at the scale of the petition, the PMOS replied that people did feel strongly about this issue, but feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals. It was the duty of government to come up with practical proposals, and to explain to people why the proposals were necessary, and to work through how they might be carried out. This was precisely why we were talking to the 10 local areas about proposals for pilot schemes.

Asked if there was a secret threshold of signatures that would change government policy, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of one. It was not a surprise that people felt strongly on this. It did not mean that we would stop thinking of ways to deal with this issue. The 25% figure on congestion told everyone all that they needed to know about why we needed to do something about this.

Asked if the Prime Minister had seen this petition, and asked to clarify what was meant by the previous answer that petitions formed part of the overall context in which decisions were taken and whether that was just code for junked, the PMOS replied that the BBC had an amazing ability to call black white. He took this opportunity to invite the BBC to do a little sum of the amount of coverage it devoted to pushing the Prime Minister to talk about the manner of Saddam’s execution, and then the number of seconds devoted to what the Prime Minister had actually said on the matter on the 10pm news last night. The BBC journalist replied that they were very concerned that they did not crowd out more important news items. The PMOS replied that he had succeeded admirably in at least one of his criteria, adding that it did not crowd out anything and did not even include the full quote. To answer his question, the PMOS replied that people’s strong views on this matter were being taken fully into account. But this was not a substitute for actually having to do the work to come up with the solution. Therefore this was precisely why we were doing the hard work of working with the 10 local areas to come up with practical proposals. We would then look at how they might or might not be implemented and how they then fitted in with the overall mix of what we were doing on transport. Doing nothing was not an option. Doing nothing would mean that in ten years time congestion would be 25% worse.

Asked if there were any examples of Downing Street website petitions that had changed government policy, the PMOS replied that the website petition process had only recently begun.

Asked if any policy proposals had come out of the Big Conversation, the PMOS replied that this was a Labour Party event and referred the journalist to the Labour Party.

Asked if the Prime Minister had ever been updated on the numbers in this petition before the story had broken, adding that he welcomed the discussion of processology on this occasion, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister, as he had previously confessed, was more of an old fashioned paper man than he was a computer wizard. But he was kept updated on the e-petitions on a regular basis.

361 Comments »

The plan to introduce road pricing is nonsense.In cities fine by parking and access charges.
In the country use the tax content of fuel to charge drivers who use most.
Increase the value / tax for company car use for private miles.
Comment by normanhawkins — 11 Jan 2007 on 9:45 am | Link
The plan to introduce road pricing is nonsense.In cities fine by parking and access charges.
In the country use the tax content of fuel to charge drivers who use most.
Increase the value / tax for company car use for private miles.
Comment by normanhawkins — 11 Jan 2007 on 9:46 am | Link
The Labour governments plans to introduce a New Tax of road pricing must be destroyed !!!
Labour already takes \xA350 thousand million from the motorist. This money is supposed to give us all better roads but is totally wasted by Labour !!
What the hell are "we" all paying road tax for???

BUT WITHOUT DOUBT the most sinister aspect of Labours plans in the fact that ALL and EVERY road journey will be under surveylance by a Labour Government.
George Orwells nightmare vision is coming true and BIG BROTHER WILL BE WATCHING !!!

Dave Hall
Comment by Dave Hall — 11 Jan 2007 on 10:32 pm | Link
The Labour governments plans to introduce a New Tax of road pricing must be destroyed !!!
Labour already takes \xA350 thousand million from the motorist. This money is supposed to give us all better roads but is totally wasted by Labour !!
What the hell are "we" all paying road tax for???

BUT WITHOUT DOUBT the most sinister aspect of Labours plans in the fact that ALL and EVERY road journey will be under surveylance by a Labour Government.
George Orwells nightmare vision is coming true and BIG BROTHER WILL BE WATCHING !!!

Dave Hall
Comment by Dave Hall — 11 Jan 2007 on 10:32 pm | Link
It will be a terrible crime to even consider this proposal,we already have far too much goverment interferance in our lives, under no circumstances should they be able to monitor our every movement.
Comment by P Harvey — 12 Jan 2007 on 6:21 pm | Link
Yet another stealth tax and more information being collected on the individual.
Comment by Peter Allen — 12 Jan 2007 on 6:23 pm | Link
Yet another stealth tax and more information being collected on the individual.
Comment by Peter Allen — 12 Jan 2007 on 6:26 pm | Link
You might be interested in the legislation currently going through parliment in support of road pricing. This is in the Telegraph:

The extent of the Government’s plans for road pricing is more than you might think, says Erin Baker

Many Londoners are aware that the city’s congestion charge zone will be extended westwards on February 19, but anyone who still has doubts about how widespread road pricing might become and how soon it will be implemented should type "supplemental toll provisions" into Google. The first link should take you to a private Bill on Parliament’s publications page.

Entitled "Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions)", the Bill would provide Transport for London (TfL) with greater powers to operate and enforce local road-tolling schemes. Created in draft form in August last year, it has already been placed before Parliament; the document on the House of Commons website is dated November 22, 2006.

advertisementThe Bill would allow TfL to operate a toll on major arterial roads such as the A13, A1 and A40 through the capital. References to the Government preventing the installation of toll equipment that is "incompatible with a national standard" indicate that national road-tolling equipment, and therefore national road pricing, is already a given.

There is a section in the Bill on "offences relating to payment of tolls or penalty charges". Anyone caught avoiding payment or falsifying documents to escape toll charges will be subject to a fine "or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months", or both.

Meanwhile, the number of signatures on the Downing Street petition against road-pricing and vehicle tracking, originally set up by Peter Roberts, had risen to 272,067 by the time we went to press, by far the largest petition on the website; see <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk.">http://petitions.pm.gov.uk.</a>

Mr Roberts writes: "The idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong. Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay. It will be an unfair tax on those who live apart from families and poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs. Please Mr Blair, forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion."

Given that a study by the Centre of Economics and Research on behalf of the BBC recently found that the UK pays more for its public transport than other European countries (it’s now cheaper to get a black cab for a journey in London’s central zone than it is to pay the \xA34 Tube fare for the same trip), it’s small wonder that the number of signatures continues to rise at a staggering rate. It will be interesting to see how many there are when the petition closes on February 20, and how the Government reacts.

To read Austin Williams’s analysis of the arguments for road pricing, published in these pages on December 16, go to the Environment section of the Motoring site. You can also find news reports, blogs and more reader responses via the Your View link on the telegraph.co.uk homepage, where you can sign The Daily Telegraph’s own petition and leave a comment.

This oppression has got to stop. Please sign the petition and ask everybody you know to do the same.
Comment by Peter Roberts — 13 Jan 2007 on 4:30 pm | Link
Give us options!!

We will pay for what we can afford - simple!

Those with 4×4s can afford to pay \xA31\mile… Sadly it’s those people who are on the minimum wage and must travel at ‘normal rush hour times’ who will as always find life harder!

Cheap rail fares
Cheap bus tickets

That’ll be a start!

Travel from London to Manchester return 4 adults.

\xA360\person - train = \xA3200 including discounts
\xA340 - a car = \xA340
\xA350\person - fly to Amsterdam = \xA3200
Comment by Amit Kalra — 14 Jan 2007 on 11:06 pm | Link
Do the government realy think we will accept being charged an extra \xA31000 per car per year for the privelidge of little significant road building over the last 30 years. We are being conned - they are charging us to save money. Once again the motorist is being treated as the cash cow. ENOUGH! ps if the government was serious about being green we would all be running on bio fuel by now.
Comment by John Adams — 19 Jan 2007 on 11:55 am | Link
I think people are missing some of the point here: if something drastic isn’t done soon, in a relatively short while our cities will be almost permanently gridlocked. Whatever solution we come up with will be a compromise that by its very nature is unlikely to make everyone happy.

It is unrealistic (not to mention dangerous to the environment) to think that building new roads is going to solve the problem - given how much of the country (especially the south-east) is already under concrete / tarmac, how much more space are we prepared to give up?

While I don’t approve of the idea that ‘our every move will be monitored’, in general I support the idea of road pricing - *if* this means abolishment of road tax and (at least some) fuel tax. It is far fairer to charge per mile than a blanket tax. However, obviously there would need to be certain considerations for key workers and shift workers, and various other ’special interests’ - which I suspect in real terms would make the whole proposal unworkable.

For my (admittedly not necessarily fully-informed) part, my idea would be a combination of C-charges in cities, with French-style tolls on motorways and A-roads, which would then replace the current road tax.

Also, there does need to be more encouragement to people to use car-sharing and public transport - for those who can - which I understand is not easy at the moment, given ever-spiralling costs of tube / bus / train fares. I am myself a commuter to London, using the train every day, and public transport around London occasionally - my answer to increasing costs is to get an annual railcard and an Oyster card for journeys around London, which keeps my fares lower than if I paid cash. I accept that if I want to travel on government-funded infrastructure, I have to pay for it - why can’t other people?

It’s all very well to say ’stop this road-pricing outrage’ - but what other long-term solutions can you offer?
Comment by Carryl Durnell — 22 Jan 2007 on 3:53 pm | Link
You are missing the point. A lot of the "congestion" is caused deliberately in order to be able to extract yet more money out of people. It really is that simple. Just look at traffic light phasing. If there was actually the will to sort out congestion it could be sorted tomorrow. There isn’t, so it won’t. I know this is true, because where I live an easy route into Central London from the outskirts has been turned into a nightmare by the addition of bus lanes, traffic lights on a roundabout, and filter lanes on the dual-carriageway over the roundabout. The council were warned in advance that it would create far more problems than it would solve - and so it went ahead anyway. I refuse to believe supposedly intelligent people are unaware of all the advice to the contrary, and can only conclude that they do not CARE how much congestion their ignoring advice causes - because they aren’t the ones who will get stuck in it! Plus, they can afford all the constant extra taxes - it is the "ordinary man in the street" who can’t.

So the solution to congestion is quite simple. Change our political system, our government which are to a man stooges for financial interests and lobby groups who really dictate policy. Of course, my solution has about as much chance of being adopted as yours - but it has a lot better chance of success, because your solution simply involves different ways of extracting money from the public and that’s all the current system does anyway. Face it, this is not a democracy, it’s a Plutocracy, and we are the ones who keep the coffers topped up! If there was the will to solve this problem, it wouldn’t cost a penny - most problems won’t, because it’s a question of thought, not of finance.
Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 23 Jan 2007 on 5:41 am | Link
I’m totally in favour of road charging. It will reduce congestion by 40 to 50%.

So long as it is done so that:

- it is not a stealth tax; so that it is a replacement for road tax and partly fuel tax (most people will probably pay less)

- it is done so that it takes lorries etc into account, e.g. free in the middle of the night,
spreading road usage throughout the day

- it targets people who drive chelsea tractors; they should pay more and be discouraged from using cars that are destroying the world.

- public transport is improved with greater capacity to give a genuine alternative, like in london
Comment by simon ball — 23 Jan 2007 on 12:31 pm | Link
Road pricing will not reduce congestion. Most road users do not have a viable alternative. Road pricing will be an additional tax on road users. Road pricing will be an enormously expensive means of taxing motorists. Increasing fuel tax would be much cheaper. Road tax is an infringement on human rights.

If the government is serious about both reducing congestion and reducing fuel usage, which it certainly should be, it needs to look at improving roads to facilitate traffic flow. For example, there are many, many road junctions that could relatively cheaply be improved by minor widening. Many, many towns should have been provided with a bi-pass years ago. Many roads need overtaking lanes on hills. The Government needs to look at ways to encourage working from home and means of reducing commuting.

We are suffering from many years of poor planning and lack of investment in transport, both in terms of the road network and public transport.
Comment by Richard Webster — 26 Jan 2007 on 12:00 am | Link
So long as it is done so that:

- it is not a stealth tax; so that it is a replacement for road tax and partly fuel tax (most people will probably pay less)

- public transport is improved with greater capacity to give a genuine alternative, like in london
Posted by simon ball on 23 Jan 2007 12:31 | Link | Abusive comment?

And therein lies the root of the problem as far as the public is concerned - because it won’t just LOOK like a stealth tax, it IS a stealth tax. Leaving aside your own personal prejudices for one second, do you really really REALLY think that this government or any other for that matter is going to abolish road tax (or any other established tax)? Of COURSE they aren’t - and if you think they WILL, just look to history. And yet common sense would dictate that for road pricing to be viable road tax would have to be abolished. And here we come full circle - for the fact that the one will not happen before the other is introduced proves one thing and one thing only - it is about the money and not the environment. And therefore all considerations about the environment might as well be packaged up and shoved in the nearest bin, because the only reason they were mentioned in the first place was to get the green vote on the government’s side, only for them to stab YOU in the back as well as everyone else.

Face it, this is not a government. It’s a collection of accountants looking for yet more ways to make yet more money for the Bank Of England, a private institution in the hands of the same people that own the US Federal Reserve. They care about one thing and one thing only - and that isn’t the environment! But don’t look for anything to improve under the Tories, whose leader has already been vetted by the Bilderburgers, the same people who approved Tony Bliar for the top job. The only thing that will ever change will be the packaging, but the policies will remain the same…
Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 26 Jan 2007 on 9:04 am | Link
Leave aside for the moment issues about stealth tax, monitoring of our movements, and incorrect tracking putting us at the place of a crime or on a more expensive road without much hope of a credible defence. Aside from these, where is the social morality?

The only way that this road pricing system can work is by raising prices to the point where a significant number of people cannot afford to drive their cars on the roads they need at the times they need.

So this ‘Labour’ government is designing a system that allows people with money to travel when and where they want without being inconvenienced by so many poorer people cluttering the roads up. The use of ‘public’ (i.e., our) highways won’t be based on the need to use the road, the worth of the journey to society, or individual freedom - it will be based on wealth alone.

Not even Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Loads of Money’ generation was quite as brazen as that.
Comment by Peter Kelley — 28 Jan 2007 on 12:41 am | Link
If the government really wanted to reduce the use of cars they would provide a viable alternative.
Expensive cattle trucks (overcrowded trains) could not cope if we abandoned our cars. The rail network is already struggling to cope with existing demand.
Comment by John Westcott — 28 Jan 2007 on 9:28 pm | Link
Can someone tell me the point of road charging. We already have this method of tax in place with the petrol tax which is much fairer as smaller engined cars will pay less tax as they will do more miles to the litre, whereas large engined, thirsty cars will pay much more.

Road charging is a tax which hurts most those who are least well off and advantages most the wealthy.

Additionally, it will be an incredibly expensive method of doing the job petrol tax already does. The motive for this has to be the tracking of legitimate vehicles and individuals wherever they go.

Since we currently have a system where apparently 1 in 5 cars have no tax, presumably these people will continue to fall outside the system; as always, the law abiding citizen is the one who pays, who is tracked and who is pursued. The others just get away with everything.

Another point, what is going to happen to overseas visitors who are driving in the UK in their own cars - will they be forced to purchase a satellite box - or will foreigners not have to pay to use British roads??

Whilst we are being exhorted not to fly anywhere but to holiday at home - who on earth will be able to afford, for example, to drive from London to Scotland or Cornwall for a holiday ??? Even a family of four or five would find the cost of doing this trip extortionate.

Until such time as the government can ensure that every car is legal in this country there is no way they can fairly even consider introducing road charging and until such time as the government can provide first class, reliable, safe, regular, local public transport, road charging cannot, in all fairness be considered.

We are being cornered into a situation where we will have to stay at home except in emergencies.
Comment by A Johnstone — 29 Jan 2007 on 1:37 pm | Link
"We are being cornered into a situation where we will have to stay at home except in emergencies."

Spot on!! This is nothing to do with fairness, or common sense, or the environment. It is everything to do with the surveillance society, the Bank of England, and World Government. If you want to REALLY know what is going on, I’d suggest reading the family history of the House of Rothschild. It is currently estimated by economists that they own at least 55% of the world’s wealth; modern politics is nothing to do with governance and all about gaining the control over every last one of us to stop us ever ganging together and doing something about it.
Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 29 Jan 2007 on 3:14 pm | Link
 ROAD CHARGING (referred to as the Toll Tax)
 Limitations
 Although the details of the charging regime are not yet fully known, it will most probably rely on a crude threshold system, such as class of road and type of vehicle, for pricing and will do nothing towards encouraging environmentally-more- friendly driving behaviour/vehicles. This and pollution are covered by a fuel/energy tax.
 What is the overall cost of establishing and testing the system before actual use?
 Will the actual cost be kept within the budget?
 Will the system work to specification within contract timescale?
 The asserted objective is to avoid congestion. Might unexpected congestion occur on side roads because of traffic avoiding higher tax?
 It is claimed that the object is to redistribute traffic onto less crowded routes and that it will be "tax neutral". However, technology of this magnitude and design-complexity is not obtained for peanuts. If road taxes are not the source of the up-front costs of design/implementation/installation/commissioning, then Income Tax and the Council Tax will be the sources of revenue for the enterprise. Thus, costs will be borne by the general taxpayer, whereas a fuel tax would be paid by the user and the beneficiaries of transport usage i.e. in the goods and services provided by road transport, and not those who economize on vehicle usage.
 The complexity of this Toll Tax is too great to provide a reliable service with robust failure management and complete accuracy of billing. When up and running it might deter enough motorists from taking expensive routes just by the imprecision of journey costs and the fear of incurring unforeseen expenses.
 If a similar system is put in place for vans and lorries vehicles may resort to unsuitable roads to minimize their costs.
 How will one know in advance and en route how much one is paying?
 It is not clear that the system will permit the pricing of a journey or even enable an upper bound on the price until after the journey has been made.
 THE FUEL TAX IS A REMARKABLY SUBTLE MECHANISM,INCIDENTALLY ADDRESSING ALL THESE EFECTS

 FUEL TAX (or as it is better-called Energy Pricing)
 Fuel tax is said to be a regressive tax. It could better be described as progressive in its simplicity, subtlety and proportionality to use. What, in any community which adopts a monetary system, is not regressive?
 The fuel escalator was one of the more enlightened pieces of legislation. It was scrapped in a gesture of \x91generosity\x91 which took no regard of its efficiency, pollution reduction and progressive effect upon transport density and trickledown nature to a truer cost of goods and services. It tackled the limits of resource (fuel), pollution and even had an effect on congestion and excess noise. It charged (reasonably) according to journey length, when satellite monitoring will probably not permit one even to make an estimate of journey cost beforehand. Fine adjustment could be made nationally to 0.1p/litre of fuel.
 The fuel tax escalator had much to commend it. If fairness to all road users and global environmental considerations were the criteria, rather than the interests of particular lobby groups. it was a success.
 The collection mechanism is already in place, not costing millions to design and more by the time of delivery.
 It could take over from the current road tax and could even include basic insurance.
 It addresses the real problems of pollution and congestion
 Being an energy tax it gives a rough proportionality to the damage to roads and hence the cost of their repair.
 In a single measure, many highly important matters are simultaneously, easily and sensitively adjustable.
 It puts the decision with the driver (or his adviser) in terms of choice of vehicle, driving characteristics especially speed, maintenance, route choice \x96 all areas where market forces have a part to play in a complex way.
 To adopt road charging rather than fuel tax addresses symptoms rather than causes, and proposes introducing a complex system into an area which demands high accuracy, whilst the fuel duty addresses n a single measure, many highly important matters making them simultaneously, easily and delicately adjusted.
 One heard that it was a "regressive" tax. This meaningless term could equally be replaced by "environmentally progressive".
 It was said that "it would hit the poor hardest". What, in a monetarist society, does not? Anything costing money can be regarded as \x93regressive\x94 in the sense that since the poorer the purchaser, the greater the relative cost. An advantage is that rather than paying ahead for a charge card or later per journey
 It is more relevant how any revenue is used. Public transport and highway maintenance are paramount.
 It is a tried and tested mechanism, it is robust in not being subject to the potential for minor but widespread faults, in fact the time that it has operated has allowed most troubles to be ironed out and the majority of fraudulent practices to be prevented.
 Arguments about fuel strikes are irrelevant. The climate has changed both metaphorically and in fact. What is important is how well policies are explained, their necessity, intentions and their benefits.
 The only likely satisfied customers of road charging would be
 1) the "personal surveillance freaks" who might welcome the technology (as a personal GPS fix on every member of the populous. If this is the aim it should be made clear as an \x91advantage\x92 or at least a \x91feature\x92.
 2) those making profits from contracts.

If, at the same time one can benefit the environment, by encouraging economical use of resources, less pollution (greenhouse gases and noxious fumes) this must be desirable.
Comment by B Stonebridge — 1 Feb 2007 on 9:22 pm | Link
This petition’s originator, Peter Roberts said this week on national radio that this proposed system was not necessary as congestion was a ‘London’ only problem. You must be joking Mr Roberts, it may not be a problem in rural Shropshire where you tootle around but let me assure you it’s a countrywide problem. A four mile cross town journey in Bury, Lancashire can take anything up to one hour, we have congestion 7 days a week.

I am against this proposal but will not sign the petition. This petition, and many other petitions, are merely a negative comment on the proposal without adding any positive contribution to the debate. Ask many people if they object to spending more money on ANYTHING and the reply would be ‘Yes’. Whether six thousand or six million sign the petition means little, what we need is an alternative proposal and until one is suggested objecting to this proposal is futile. You can sign the petition and bury your head in the sand but the fact of the matter is the SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE ABOUT CONGESTION.

I will add my suggestion. The governement wants people to identify the relationship between car use and cost to the individual so that when they see the cost of the journey they may think twice before taking the car out. However, installing a GPS tracker in each vehicle to calculate this seems a bit over the top, too complicated and smacks of unecessary state control of our daily lives. Journeys already have a cost per mile so why not simply make drivers more aware of the cost of their journey by installing a meter display in the vehicle, rather like the display that you see in a taxi. Many cars are already fitted with computers that can tell you most of this information. This is not to be used to charge the person but rather so that they can see the real cost of the journey mounting up as the engine ticks over. This charge is based upon the fuel used with a ‘wear and tear’ factor built in. I’m sure that with one of these cheaper devices the amount of car miles will fall and we don’t need to worry about ‘Big Brother’ or a mechanism for collecting the tolls.

Any other suggestions before our roads becaome unusable?
Comment by J Southworth — 3 Feb 2007 on 7:19 pm | Link
It’s all very well saying ‘go by train’, but to take 10% off the roads an put them on the trains will require a massive % increase in train capacity. Surely there is a limit to car numbers (number of licence holders) traffic can’t increase forever - who will be driving the cars?
Comment by Mark Hawkins — 5 Feb 2007 on 10:54 am | Link
We are a small business run on tight margins. Our business relies on us sending engineers to customers for emergency repairs and planned maintenance. Our customers include hospitals, forensics labs, drug testing laboratories.

We cannot decide when our journeys will be taken - we have to respond to demand of our customers. Public transport is not an option - we have to carry specialised equipment and get to out of the way places.

Road charging will simply add to our already high overheads. This could possibly lead to loss of jobs or even closure.

I don’t believe we are the only small business that will be in this position
Comment by Steve Finnigan — 5 Feb 2007 on 5:29 pm | Link
Sign the petition.

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

Pass on the link. Then, when there are upwards of 10 million people’s names on the list, and the government STILL ignores us, maybe you will start to see that "democracy" is as dead as freedom of choice. Maybe then people will start to think outside the box and realise what a huge con modern government really is. Oh, and don’t look for it to get any better under the "Tories" - how many times recently have we seen David Cameron endorsing the policies of "New Labour", criticising only the way they are implemented? These people are LAUGHING at us - whilst they empty our wallets in front of us.
Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 6 Feb 2007 on 10:17 am | Link
I live in the north east of England, working in Durham City and living in Stockton on Tees, so I travel approximately 50 miles each day to and from work.

I’m lucky that I don’t have a school run to add to that, but I do like to visit relatives once a week who live in outside the area.

I earn roughly \xA315,500 per year in a dead end admin job for the local Council. I already pay \xA3250 road tax per year, plus \xA3450 to insure my little Ford Fiesta. I also pay \xA340+ for an annual MOT, \xA3150 for an annual service (I am one of those few who do this at a proper service station and not a ‘patch up job’ via a friend of a friend), and roughly \xA325 per week in petrol. If I had to pay \xA31.34 per mile (as stated in the nationals yesterday) for a journey I NEED to do (ie work!) I will have to pay an additional \xA3335 per WEEK to travel. Times this by 47 weeks per year (I have taken off the five weeks holiday I generously get from my employer) and this equates to \xA315,745 per YEAR (subject of course to me being housebound during my annual leave and at every weekend!) This is \xA3200 MORE than I earn. Can someone please tell me how I will be able to pay the Council Tax, continually soaring utility bills, food, clothing, household maintenance, insurances, mortgage….etc… as well as trying to save for retirement (ha ha!)

Public transport is not really an option at present - I would have to leave the house at 5am to get two/three buses (if they are running and on time) to get me to Durham for 8am. I would then have to walk a mile and a half to my office as it is not on a local bus route. To add to this I am severely travel sick on buses and do not fancy starting and ending each working day with a carrier bag of sick in my hand.

Train journey would also be very difficult. I would have to get a bus to Thornaby, then to Durham (I’m not even sure if this is possible or at what un-godly hour I would have to begin the journey). Again there would be considerable walk from the Station to my office.

I am not against paying taxes - I already do pay them in the form of NI, Income Tax, road tax, fuel tax, VAT, etc, and have been doing this since I was 18. I am proud that I am able to contribute to the economy and to the public purse, even though the results are not always evident. However, I find this proposal extremely worrying/frightening. It will have an obvious detrimental impact on the lives of every-day folk, by pushing up the cost of goods and services. An alternative solution must be found.

Some solutions that have proved successful are park and ride schemes, or inner-city congestion charging.

Durham have in the past year opened several park and ride sites just outside of the city centre. These have apparently reduced the volume of traffic, improved the environment, etc in the City at peak hours. I would have liked to see a park and ride sited around the Bowburn interchange with the A1(M). There is one at the A690 interchange, but this means travelling extra miles to reach it. Perhaps this will be a possiblity for the future? There is some contention in relation to a fee of \xA31.70 per person to use the ‘ride’ aspect, but I would rather pay this than \xA31.34 a mile - it is also cheaper than paying per hour in the inner-city car parks. Durham also have congestion charging in place (route to the Cathederal) and are looking to apply it to parts (or the whole) of the A690 - this road goes through the City Centre and is heavily used at peak times; although there is usually always a slow flow of traffic, not stand-still as in other cities. I would rather pay the congestion charge on this road, for the length of time I am on it, than \xA31.34 per mile for my total journey.

I am not even against being ‘tracked’ if this is felt necessary as I have nothing to hide, and judging by the amount of junk mail I receive I must be on every database going, anyway.

If the proposal to introduce this tax went ahead my quality of life (economically, physically and mentally) would suffer greatly as I will be leaving the house at 5am and not returning until say 8pm; I would have no money left for any other purpose or bills (in fact I would be in considerable debt; and I would be unable to socialise outside my own home (or cardboard box - no money = no home).

These may be minor rants and may appear to be insignificant to some - I don’t know… I do not profess to being an expert in politics or economics - I’m just a ‘regular jo-anne’ with a pretty boring normal life - work - home - work - home - shop - watch TV! What I do know is that I am already paying out whatever comes in just to survive and I cannot - apart from working 24/7 - see a way of paying an additional ‘toll’ tax.

If it were to go ahead, I would have no option but to quit my job, move into a hostel/B&B/Council dump, and rely on government handouts. I may as well kill myself now.
Comment by Jude — 6 Feb 2007 on 11:02 am | Link
"This is \xA3200 MORE than I earn. Can someone please tell me how I will be able to pay the Council Tax, continually soaring utility bills, food, clothing, household maintenance, insurances, mortgage….etc… as well as trying to save for retirement (ha ha!)"

The fact that it is totally impossible should be the point to most people. ONCE AGAIN. It is NOT ABOUT CONGESTION, or the environment, or anything else. It’s about taking your money off you, so as to control you. And once again, people will only start to listen to "lunatic theories" like this when it is too late - but by then all the "I told you so’s" in the world from "conspiracy theorists" will be no good - because it WILL be too late. So yes, you may as well kill yourself now - or you could start to educate yourself as to who is REALLY behind politics in this country, and how, and why.

Clue: the Bank of England is NOT a part of the government. It is a privately owned, for-profit institution owned by a very small group of people who also own the US Federal Reserve and the World Bank. It has been private since its inception in 1694 (and the initial share floatation wasn’t even paid in full!!!) They want your money, ALL of it, so as to control you - totally. And, they’re going to get it - because people are not willing to listen to "conspiracy theory" which is in reality nothing but history. Believe it or not; die in ignorance or find out the truth. It’s quite simple really - but the only way the course we are on will EVER be changed will be when everyone wakes up to one very simple fact: Fractional Reserve Banking is the biggest evil ever devised by man, and is the root of all of our woes.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it all back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit." - Lord Stamp, a Director of the Bank of England, in a speech in 1940

I’ll not hold my breath though.
Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 6 Feb 2007 on 8:33 pm | Link
So we face a 25% increase in congestion during the coming decade, can someone please explain how this will come about?
The population of the UK has virtually levelled off, and according to statistics, will soon be in decline. In all the discussions about congestion, I have never heard any mention of one critical (known) factor: ….. The number of driving licences on issue. I can own 10 cars, but I can only drive one at a time. Our population is decreasing, so where is this gridlock going to come from? Traffic gridlock is just a myth.Traffic jams are a nuisance, but sensible drivers learn to avoid most of them.
Road pricing is all about increasing revenue and, ultimately, population control; traffic management is just a justification for it. We pay by the distance we drive already by fuel tax. It will not differentiate between vehicles, so there will be no incentive to economise.
Many people have still not grasped just what road pricing by the mile will mean to every one of us, whether we run a car or not, and irrespective of the mileage we do. Homes Shops and workplaces are now widely separated due to government policy, and in any normal job it is virtually impossible not to drive in a ”rush hour”. Try walking from Tesco with a week’s shopping!! If this latest insanity goes ahead, tourism and a raft of many other essential businesses will cease to exist.
Perhaps our illustrious leaders want us to work at home and grow our own food??

Is our intelligence to be insulted further by being expected to believe that traffic revenues will fall ”for most people”? Are we actually expected to believe that the system will actually work? Road Pricing will have no effect on our leaders of course, merely leave the roads free. Ken Livingstone is on record as saying he’d like to ”ban the lot if he could”.To the wealthy it will be just a nuisance, to the average motorist it will be the last straw.
Why do we put up with this in the UK—in France or Italy there would be–literally–a riot.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
Dont just sign the petition, email it to everyone in your address book and get them to do the same. It’s growing at about 3000 an hour, we need 100 times that.
Comment by N.Pagett — 7 Feb 2007 on 12:27 am | Link
So we face a 25% increase in congestion during the coming decade, can someone please explain how this will come about?
The population of the UK has virtually levelled off, and according to statistics, will soon be in decline. In all the discussions about congestion, I have never heard any mention of one critical (known) factor: ….. The number of driving licences on issue. I can own 10 cars, but I can only drive one at a time. Our population is decreasing, so where is this gridlock going to come from? Traffic gridlock is just a myth.Traffic jams are a nuisance, but sensible drivers learn to avoid most of them.
Road pricing is all about increasing revenue and, ultimately, population control; traffic management is just a justification for it. We pay by the distance we drive already by fuel tax. It will not differentiate between vehicles, so there will be no incentive to economise.
Many people have still not grasped just what road pricing by the mile will mean to every one of us, whether we run a car or not, and irrespective of the mileage we do. Homes Shops and workplaces are now widely separated due to government policy, and in any normal job it is virtually impossible not to drive in a ”rush hour”. Try walking from Tesco with a week’s shopping!! If this latest insanity goes ahead, tourism and a raft of many other essential businesses will cease to exist.
Perhaps our illustrious leaders want us to work at home and grow our own food??

Is our intelligence to be insulted further by being expected to believe that traffic revenues will fall ”for most people”? Are we actually expected to believe that the system will actually work? Road Pricing will have no effect on our leaders of course, merely leave the roads free. Ken Livingstone is on record as saying he’d like to ”ban the lot if he could”.To the wealthy it will be just a nuisance, to the average motorist it will be the last straw.
Why do we put up with this in the UK—in France or Italy there would be–literally–a riot.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
Dont just sign the petition, email it to everyone in your address book and get them to do the same. It’s growing at about 3000 an hour, we need 100 times that.
Comment by N.Pagett — 7 Feb 2007 on 12:27 am | Link
So we face a 25% increase in congestion during the coming decade, can someone please explain how this will come about?
The population of the UK has virtually levelled off, and according to statistics, will soon be in decline. In all the discussions about congestion, I have never heard any mention of one critical (known) factor: ….. The number of driving licences on issue. I can own 10 cars, but I can only drive one at a time. Our population is decreasing, so where is this gridlock going to come from? Traffic gridlock is just a myth.Traffic jams are a nuisance, but sensible drivers learn to avoid most of them.
Road pricing is all about increasing revenue and, ultimately, population control; traffic management is just a justification for it. We pay by the distance we drive already by fuel tax. It will not differentiate between vehicles, so there will be no incentive to economise.
Many people have still not grasped just what road pricing by the mile will mean to every one of us, whether we run a car or not, and irrespective of the mileage we do. Homes Shops and workplaces are now widely separated due to government policy, and in any normal job it is virtually impossible not to drive in a ”rush hour”. Try walking from Tesco with a week’s shopping!! If this latest insanity goes ahead, tourism and a raft of many other essential businesses will cease to exist.
Perhaps our illustrious leaders want us to work at home and grow our own food??

Is our intelligence to be insulted further by being expected to believe that traffic revenues will fall ”for most people”? Are we actually expected to believe that the system will actually work? Road Pricing will have no effect on our leaders of course, merely leave the roads free. Ken Livingstone is on record as saying he’d like to ”ban the lot if he could”.To the wealthy it will be just a nuisance, to the average motorist it will be the last straw.
Why do we put up with this in the UK—in France or Italy there would be–literally–a riot.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
Dont just sign the petition, email it to everyone in your address book and get them to do the same. It’s growing at about 3000 an hour, we need 100 times that.
Comment by N.Pagett — 7 Feb 2007 on 12:29 am | Link
So we face a 25% increase in congestion during the coming decade, can someone please explain how this will come about?
The population of the UK has virtually levelled off, and according to statistics, will soon be in decline. In all the discussions about congestion, I have never heard any mention of one critical (known) factor: ….. The number of driving licences on issue. I can own 10 cars, but I can only drive one at a time. Our population is decreasing, so where is this gridlock going to come from? Traffic gridlock is just a myth.Traffic jams are a nuisance, but sensible drivers learn to avoid most of them.
Road pricing is all about increasing revenue and, ultimately, population control; traffic management is just a justification for it. We pay by the distance we drive already by fuel tax. It will not differentiate between vehicles, so there will be no incentive to economise.
Many people have still not grasped just what road pricing by the mile will mean to every one of us, whether we run a car or not, and irrespective of the mileage we do. Homes Shops and workplaces are now widely separated due to government policy, and in any normal job it is virtually impossible not to drive in a ”rush hour”. Try walking from Tesco with a week’s shopping!! If this latest insanity goes ahead, tourism and a raft of many other essential businesses will cease to exist.
Perhaps our illustrious leaders want us to work at home and grow our own food??

Is our intelligence to be insulted further by being expected to believe that traffic revenues will fall ”for most people”? Are we actually expected to believe that the system will actually work? Road Pricing will have no effect on our leaders of course, merely leave the roads free. Ken Livingstone is on record as saying he’d like to ”ban the lot if he could”.To the wealthy it will be just a nuisance, to the average motorist it will be the last straw.
Why do we put up with this in the UK—in France or Italy there would be–literally–a riot.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
Dont just sign the petition, email it to everyone in your address book and get them to do the same. It’s growing at about 3000 an hour, we need 100 times that.
Comment by N.Pagett — 7 Feb 2007 on 12:30 am | Link
i think it is disgusting that the goverment are charging people to drive on the roads, when some people need to drive to go back and forth to work and collage evryday by car.
so they shouldnt start raod charging cause it would be a waste of time and money
Regards

Tom
Comment by Thomas Croot — 7 Feb 2007 on 9:43 am | Link
this is fucking bullshit you make me sick, you just want more money for your self you starving fuckers, this is just going to cause riots, the puplic transport is terible, no one is going to follow this crap, we pay tax we pay for petrol we pay for the car and now you want us to pay to use the road, its disgusting. thank you James xxx <3 xxx
Comment by James Jenkins — 7 Feb 2007 on 9:47 am | Link
this is fucking bullshit you make me sick, you just want more money for your self you starving fuckers, this is just going to cause riots, the puplic transport is terible, no one is going to follow this crap, we pay tax we pay for petrol we pay for the car and now you want us to pay to use the road, its disgusting. thank you James xxx <3 xxx
Comment by James Jenkins — 7 Feb 2007 on 9:47 am | Link
I think that its disgusting that the government are trying to make us pay further for using the roads that everybody uses to get back and for to work and college to make a living and to keep their family and children, and they need to be able to afford food and clothes and you get enough money out of us with road tax as it is. Introducing another tax is just going to make the middle class people poorer, and your on about ending world poverty well sucking more money out of our bank accounts isnt going to help your just going to increase world poverty. Were caught on cctv around 300 times a day and now you want to track us 24/7 its an invasion of privacy, we do have lives and we want to be able to live our lives properly.
Comment by Shayne — 7 Feb 2007 on 9:48 am | Link
I travel up and down this country on a daily basis with my work. And I have lost count of the amount of traffic jams that I have been stuck in. One thing that does stick out the amount of accidents and jams caused by these huge lorries and artics. Surely the cheapest and safest option is for them to travel during the night when there is far less traffic.
To be charged per mile to do my job is scandelous, this will surely affect every ordinary working man. The government would tax us on fresh air if they could get away with it.
The government is put into power to look after our interests, yes us the common voters, why is it when ever they do anything does it look like they are only considering themselves. People are getting more and more dissallusioned every day, and we have no good alternative.
Comment by Glenn Dawson — 7 Feb 2007 on 12:30 pm | Link
Hi,
This is hilarius never heard or thought somthing like this would ever happen, whats the difference of day light robbery its like a crime act or us being locked up in jail we do have lifes and we all pay enough as it is….. petrol,tax,family, education,mortgage,house bills etc etc etc what is the government thinking?
this is ridiculous!!!!!!
I think you need to get a life!!!
It is going to be a absolute mayhem and we aint slaves we want to live life peacefully.
Many Thanks
Jason
Comment by Jason — 7 Feb 2007 on 12:56 pm | Link
"The government would tax us on fresh air if they could get away with it."

Yes, they would. I’m only surprised they haven’t so far, although if you believe the reasoning behind the "congestion charge" it’s close enough… But don’t worry, once we’re all microchipped and helpless, they’ll get round to it, have no fear!

"The government is put into power to look after our interests, yes us the common voters,"

Don’t be silly, what on EARTH gave you that idea? Don’t you realise by now that governments are selected, not elected? It makes no difference what you or I want, nor does it make any difference what the government want. They do what they are told, and what they are told is to follow a particular agenda and not let us, the common voters, find out what that agenda really is. Don’t believe me? Take a look around! Look at the constant lies they SEEM to tell - they aren’t SEEMING to tell constant lies at all, they ARE telling constant lies. That’s because the government we think is the government is NOT the government at all, but the PR department for the government. Sounds crazy, I know - but it’s a realisation I came to recently and it’s the only way to make sense of the mayhem coming out of Whitehall. The REAL government consists of the upper-crust elite, the industrialists, bankers and super-rich whose money and influence dictates what really happens, regardless of what is good or common sense for the majority. Not noticed how policy NEVER suits "the working man"? That’s because the elite see us as their cash cow. A cynical viewpoint perhaps? Yes, it is - but can the road-charging idea be any less cynical?!

"why is it when ever they do anything does it look like they are only considering themselves."

Um, because they ARE! Look, it really isn’t that whacked out an idea - you only have to look at the WHAT is happening to see WHO benefits - and therefore see the cynicism behind the whole system, despite the hard time people have admitting it to themselves. Face it, we’ve been had by our political system, it’s part of the con of ages. That’s the only reason why people refuse to submit to "conspiracy theories" - because they have such a hard time admitting they have been conned on such a massive scale. And yet, you can see by things like this that it is nothing to do with creating policies for the common good and all to do with taking all (ALL) your money off you, and controlling you. Better get used to it - it ain’t going away, even if you DO hide the truth from yourself!

Oh, next step is to microchip us all. Better believe it, pilot schemes are already in place. It’s all to do with the drive towards World Government. Don’t feel too bad though. If anything, feel sorry for the Yanks - they won’t even have a country in 3 years time! (The USA, Mexico and Canada will merge into the North American Union, along the lines of the EU, in 2010. If you don’t believe THAT, check out the Whitehouse website, there’s a statement by the Pres about it on there.)
Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 8 Feb 2007 on 2:16 am | Link
LOOK FORWARD TO MAY AND GET THE LABOUR COUNCILS VOTED OUT+PLUS RED KEN LIVINGSTONE
Comment by percy wright — 8 Feb 2007 on 12:02 pm | Link
I feel that this proposal only has a revenue proposal behind it. It will be another huge source of revenue for the goverment. Many low income drivers will be priced off the roads so it will probably ease congestion for the better off. Surely the answer is to spend the surplus road tax revenue on public transport, more local metro systems. If we can reach that standard of public transport then that would reduce road congestion. I work shifts and public transport just does not allow me to use it to get to work.
Comment by a malcolm — 9 Feb 2007 on 3:27 pm | Link
For goodness sake! It’s your own fault for voting them in again… and again. Stop whinging, or vote Tory!
Comment by swifty — 9 Feb 2007 on 7:21 pm | Link
Yet another attack on motorist but really it is a stealth tax. Get Labour out they are definitely a Government of tax and spend.
Comment by N Evans — 10 Feb 2007 on 8:29 am | Link
why is with this goverment it is take take take it is about time they started giving us some back we are not on their sort of wages to pay for things like this
Comment by jackie — 10 Feb 2007 on 10:14 am | Link
As a sales Rep icannot use public transport for my occupation.My company and thousands of others who employ field sales people will not be able to finance the extra costs from road tolls.

Personal car use is also essential because public transport has not and will not improve FACT.

Finally,It is very obvious that the extra revenue will go to the treasury and very little or none towards tackling global warming.The government are never clear on what their ideas are on tackling global warming and how effective it will be.
Could you imagine what the USA public ( one of the biggest pollutor) would do if their congress anounced this road pricing !!!!!!!!!!
If we think that we are going to make that much difference and that taking the lead will make others do the same….. we are sadly mistaken….I again say this is just a revenue raiser with out a doubt

I have voted Labour all my life….no more.Too many lies,spin,broken promises and TAX.
Now you are threaterning my lively hood !!!!
Comment by P Garvey — 10 Feb 2007 on 10:21 am | Link
As a sales Rep icannot use public transport for my occupation.My company and thousands of others who employ field sales people will not be able to finance the extra costs from road tolls.

Personal car use is also essential because public transport has not and will not improve FACT.

Finally,It is very obvious that the extra revenue will go to the treasury and very little or none towards tackling global warming.The government are never clear on what their ideas are on tackling global warming and how effective it will be.
Could you imagine what the USA public ( one of the biggest pollutor) would do if their congress anounced this road pricing !!!!!!!!!!
If we think that we are going to make that much difference and that taking the lead will make others do the same….. we are sadly mistaken….I again say this is just a revenue raiser with out a doubt

I have voted Labour all my life….no more.Too many lies,spin,broken promises and TAX.
Now you are threaterning my lively hood !!!!
Comment by P Garvey — 10 Feb 2007 on 10:22 am | Link
If public transport was adequate it would be "fair" to charge additional costs for using roads but until public transport improves in the provinces our cars are essential.
Comment by H Cranfield — 10 Feb 2007 on 12:07 pm | Link
This is ludicrous, I can almost understand if they want to reduce congestion due to global warming and other factors but doing this is not only another massive infringement on privacy but it would also mean people using environmentally friendly cars, biofuel etc, would pay just as much as anyone else, no incentive whatsoever to be more ‘green’. This governments got mad, vote wisely next election.
Comment by Jo — 10 Feb 2007 on 2:22 pm | Link
If Blair and his cronies want to loose the next election then road charging will certainly help them out of office. They get enough cash from motorists already with fuel tax, road tax and from the council tax. taxing journeys will be the last straw. If he wants more money then pull or troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and bring them home and stop being Bush’s lapdog.
Comment by Geoff Carden — 10 Feb 2007 on 2:33 pm | Link
If Blair and his cronies want to loose the next election then road charging will certainly help them out of office. They get enough cash from motorists already with fuel tax, road tax and from the council tax. taxing journeys will be the last straw. If he wants more money then pull or troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and bring them home and stop being Bush’s lapdog.
Comment by Geoff Carden — 10 Feb 2007 on 2:34 pm | Link
What is all the fuss about? If the road charge is not introduced, some other form of taxation will be introduced. The British public are always fooled into thinking they have some control over taxes. The fact of the matter is they are being driven more and more to a two class society; the really rich and the really poor. Taxation (disguised and otherwise) is designed to remove the earnings of people to an extent where they get "pocket money" each week.
Comment by Bob Cash — 10 Feb 2007 on 3:59 pm | Link
What is all the fuss about? If the road charge is not introduced, some other form of taxation will be introduced. The British public are always fooled into thinking they have some control over taxes. The fact of the matter is they are being driven more and more to a two class society; the really rich and the really poor. Taxation (disguised and otherwise) is designed to remove the earnings of people to an extent where they get "pocket money" each week.
Comment by Bob Cash — 10 Feb 2007 on 3:59 pm | Link
Scrap the anual road fund tax and increase tax on fuel by say 30p/litre.
The benifits mean that tax dodgers, tourists from other countries, even car thieves will have to pay their dues.
There will be no need to spend billions on tracking eqipment etc.
It may also encourage drivers to slow down and drive more efficiently.
Comment by g slaney — 10 Feb 2007 on 5:11 pm | Link
Scrap the anual road fund tax and increase tax on fuel by say 30p/litre.
The benifits mean that tax dodgers, tourists from other countries, even car thieves will have to pay their dues.
There will be no need to spend billions on tracking eqipment etc.
It may also encourage drivers to slow down and drive more efficiently.
Comment by g slaney — 10 Feb 2007 on 5:12 pm | Link
Why does this government keep on thinking by taxing us to death, it will be elected next time round? If it was to come clean about the way we pay tax on fuel, it would raise a few eyebrows.
Basic price of fuel + fuel duty, then 17.5% vat, so we are paying tax on a tax, then road fund licence, and now road charging, what next?
Why do all european counties have a decent public transport system, so theres no need to use your car to get to work and clog all the roads up. The 1997 transport plan fell by the wayside, just as this labour govt will.
Comment by Phil McDonald — 10 Feb 2007 on 5:51 pm | Link
Once again this goverment is wanting to make more taxation the way to handle an issue rather than finding solutions. We are already the most taxed drivers in Europe and the original car tax was designed to pay for roads and their upkeep which is clearly not the case today. This government uses car and fuel taxes just to line the treasury pocket and puts very little back to the road users. Every time there is an issue the Chancellor just expects the drivers to pay more and more and get less back for it. When is this government going to get real and stop the TAX, TAX, TAX and learn how to use the taxpayers money effectively. In industry if you were so financially inefficient you would be out of business tomorrow.
Comment by Ian Howley — 10 Feb 2007 on 6:58 pm | Link
Once again this goverment is wanting to make more taxation the way to handle an issue rather than finding solutions. We are already the most taxed drivers in Europe and the original car tax was designed to pay for roads and their upkeep which is clearly not the case today. This government uses car and fuel taxes just to line the treasury pocket and puts very little back to the road users. Every time there is an issue the Chancellor just expects the drivers to pay more and more and get less back for it. When is this government going to get real and stop the TAX, TAX, TAX and learn how to use the taxpayers money effectively. In industry if you were so financially inefficient you would be out of business tomorrow.
Comment by Ian Howley — 10 Feb 2007 on 6:58 pm | Link
This is yet another way of raising tax it is not a way of saving the planet

The government likes to think that we are not a police state but their actions are such that it is fairly obvious that it is their intention to make it so as soon as they could.

I can only hope that when the british public finally wake up to what this government is doing.it will not leave it until the only way to coprrect this is by insrrection. Is this what you want Blair?
Comment by Ray Garnett — 10 Feb 2007 on 7:59 pm | Link
There is no way that this tax should ever be introuduced.
Comment by J Sira — 10 Feb 2007 on 9:20 pm | Link
There is no way that this tax should ever be introuduced.
Comment by J Sira — 10 Feb 2007 on 9:21 pm | Link
There is no way that this tax should ever be introuduced.
Comment by J Sira — 10 Feb 2007 on 9:22 pm | Link
There is no way that this tax should ever be introuduced.
Comment by J Sira — 10 Feb 2007 on 9:23 pm | Link
Pay to dodge my way round the ever increasing pot holes in what are supposedly roads? It’s not as if public transport is a viable - or affordable if talking rail travel - option in this neck of the woods, which is Somerset.
Comment by Tina Cox — 10 Feb 2007 on 9:23 pm | Link
This proposal is disgusting. Its just another way of robbing us of more money. Public transport is too expensive and not at all safe so I don’t feel it is an option.
Comment by Karen Summers — 10 Feb 2007 on 9:56 pm | Link
This proposal is disgusting. Its just another way of robbing us of more money. Public transport is too expensive and not at all safe so I don’t feel it is an option.
Comment by Karen Summers — 10 Feb 2007 on 9:56 pm | Link
I totally disagree with road charging this is another tax on motorist. I drive for a living this could a afet my livelihood .SO i totally would not like to see this at all.
Comment by IAN PATTISON — 10 Feb 2007 on 10:11 pm | Link
I entirely agree with the principle of road charging, after all there is a price to be paid for polluting the planet using diminishing fossil fuels, not to mention trying to do something about the increasing congestion on our roads. But it does need to be coupled with the provision of comprehensive and affordable public transport particularly in rural areas.

I am a pensioner and will happily use public transport rather than take my car, however there is insufficient provision in my area and many places I cannot get to without tortuous journeys using several buses. As a result I use my car more than I would like.

Road charging without realistic alternatives to cars will not work and will anatgonise an already hostile public who do not understand that unless they grasp this nettle the future for their children and grandchildren will be fairly bleak.
Comment by Sue Salzedo — 10 Feb 2007 on 10:43 pm | Link
Road pricing is only another way of fleecing the public of their money. It would not be so bad if this Government spent the public purse wisely but there is no accountability as it is all poured down the drain and squandered. This is the most corrupt and untruthful Government in the last 100 years with leader who has lost all respect
Comment by Ken Kemp — 11 Feb 2007 on 12:06 am | Link
Road pricing is only another way of fleecing the public of their money. It would not be so bad if this Government spent the public purse wisely but there is no accountability as it is all poured down the drain and squandered. This is the most corrupt and untruthful Government in the last 100 years with leader who has lost all respect
Comment by Ken Kemp — 11 Feb 2007 on 12:06 am | Link
This government already takes billions from the motorist. This money is supposed to give us a better road system but is totally wasted!!
You have no right to take any money from us!!
Comment by W Cheng — 11 Feb 2007 on 1:22 am | Link
This government already takes billions from the motorist. This money is supposed to give us a better road system but is totally wasted!!
You have no right to take any money from us!!
Comment by W Cheng — 11 Feb 2007 on 1:22 am | Link
This government already takes billions from the motorist. This money is supposed to give us a better road system but is totally wasted!!
You have no right to take any money from us!!
Comment by W Cheng — 11 Feb 2007 on 1:23 am | Link
Road pricing is only another way of fleecing the public of their money. It would not be so bad if this Government spent the public purse wisely but there is no accountability as it is all poured down the drain and squandered. This is the most corrupt and untruthful Government in the last 100 years with leader who has lost all respect
Comment by May Cheng — 11 Feb 2007 on 1:25 am | Link
This plan is arrogant nonsense and will result in the government overspending by tens of millions to get the technology right and then charging the motorist for its incompetance.

Motorists already ay 4 times more in duty and axes than in spent on roads. This excess funds this government’s largesse.

Everywhere else in the world invests to keep traffic flowing (which reduces pollution) and to give a real public transport alternative. This government just fritters away money and uses soft targets and spurious "green" arguments to attemt to justify extra taxation.
Comment by Martyn Allez — 11 Feb 2007 on 11:32 am | Link
This plan is arrogant nonsense and will result in the government overspending by tens of millions to get the technology right and then charging the motorist for its incompetance.

Motorists already ay 4 times more in duty and axes than in spent on roads. This excess funds this government’s largesse.

Everywhere else in the world invests to keep traffic flowing (which reduces pollution) and to give a real public transport alternative. This government just fritters away money and uses soft targets and spurious "green" arguments to attemt to justify extra taxation.
Comment by Martyn Allez — 11 Feb 2007 on 11:32 am | Link
This plan is arrogant nonsense and will result in the government overspending by tens of millions to get the technology right and then charging the motorist for its incompetance.

Motorists already ay 4 times more in duty and axes than in spent on roads. This excess funds this government’s largesse.

Everywhere else in the world invests to keep traffic flowing (which reduces pollution) and to give a real public transport alternative. This government just fritters away money and uses soft targets and spurious "green" arguments to attemt to justify extra taxation.
Comment by Martyn Allez — 11 Feb 2007 on 11:33 am | Link
This plan is arrogant nonsense and will result in the government overspending by tens of millions to get the technology right and then charging the motorist for its incompetance.

Motorists already ay 4 times more in duty and axes than in spent on roads. This excess funds this government’s largesse.

Everywhere else in the world invests to keep traffic flowing (which reduces pollution) and to give a real public transport alternative. This government just fritters away money and uses soft targets and spurious "green" arguments to attemt to justify extra taxation.
Comment by Martyn Allez — 11 Feb 2007 on 11:35 am | Link
This plan is arrogant nonsense and will result in the government overspending by tens of millions to get the technology right and then charging the motorist for its incompetance.

Motorists already ay 4 times more in duty and axes than in spent on roads. This excess funds this government’s largesse.

Everywhere else in the world invests to keep traffic flowing (which reduces pollution) and to give a real public transport alternative. This government just fritters away money and uses soft targets and spurious "green" arguments to attemt to justify extra taxation.
Comment by Martyn Allez — 11 Feb 2007 on 11:35 am | Link
This plan is arrogant nonsense and will result in the government overspending by tens of millions to get the technology right and then charging the motorist for its incompetance.

Motorists already ay 4 times more in duty and axes than in spent on roads. This excess funds this government’s largesse.

Everywhere else in the world invests to keep traffic flowing (which reduces pollution) and to give a real public transport alternative. This government just fritters away money and uses soft targets and spurious "green" arguments to attemt to justify extra taxation.
Comment by Martyn Allez — 11 Feb 2007 on 11:37 am | Link
Car parks at railway stations need to be bigger, free of charge and more secure to encourage people to use the train. I would also like to see the railway system brought up to date instead of it being more like that of a third world country. Whatever happened to Mr Prescott’s "Integrated Transport Policy"?
Comment by Susan Johnson — 11 Feb 2007 on 2:46 pm | Link
Car parks at railway stations need to be bigger, free of charge and more secure to encourage people to use the train. I would also like to see the railway system brought up to date instead of it being more like that of a third world country. Whatever happened to Mr Prescott’s "Integrated Transport Policy"?
Comment by Susan Johnson — 11 Feb 2007 on 2:48 pm | Link
Car parks at railway stations need to be bigger, free of charge and more secure to encourage people to use the train. I would also like to see the railway system brought up to date instead of it being more like that of a third world country. Whatever happened to Mr Prescott’s "Integrated Transport Policy"?
Comment by Susan Johnson — 11 Feb 2007 on 2:50 pm | Link
No the further Road Charging, Yes to better maintained roads, the prosecution of bad, drivers, 100% collection of road taxes from dodgers, (go around the car parks and get them whiles they are stopped, lift the cars and take them away), introduction of red routes, introduce park and ride systems (as with the city of York), create a highway patrol police force and give them real powers, not just traffic wardens; send more drivers for compulsory, retraining, (I can do that, I am a driving instructor), and put more parking in our residential areas. I have loads more ideas if you are interested. Regards. Janis Dolan
Comment by Janis Dolan — 11 Feb 2007 on 3:32 pm | Link
Once again the establishment is having us on. we pay and/or have paid enough taxes; can they think of nothing other than ripping us off?
It makes one sick of them all. It is like the congestion charge, another rip off, in some sensible countries they cut the congestion by having alternativel days for even and odd car registration numbers.
Here is all geered to who can pay goes, who cannot pay, can stuff it. It would be the same with road charging.

WM
Comment by w mordaunt — 11 Feb 2007 on 5:23 pm | Link
Once again the establishment is having us on. we pay and/or have paid enough taxes; can they think of nothing other than ripping us off?
It makes one sick of them all. It is like the congestion charge, another rip off, in some sensible countries they cut the congestion by having alternativel days for even and odd car registration numbers.
Here is all geered to who can pay goes, who cannot pay, can stuff it. It would be the same with road charging.

WM
Comment by w mordaunt — 11 Feb 2007 on 5:25 pm | Link
We are already overburdened by taxes, charges and regulations for road use and everything else. It is a burden which will fall on the less well paid: it will be no problem for the rich.

Improve the railway network and public transport generally and make fares cheaper.
Comment by george simnett — 11 Feb 2007 on 7:42 pm | Link
We are already overburdened by taxes, charges and regulations for road use and everything else. It is a burden which will fall on the less well paid: it will be no problem for the rich.

Improve the railway network and public transport generally and make fares cheaper.
Comment by george simnett — 11 Feb 2007 on 7:43 pm | Link
The PMOS says that, "There was no axiomatic process in which a petition would be submitted and the government then agreed." While this is clearly the constitutional position, there is a declining number of people willing to vote in elections. If the PM ignores - or appears to ignore - the views of millions of people this will confirm the cynical view that the opinions of the public in our democracy count for nothing!
Comment by Robin Levi — 11 Feb 2007 on 8:59 pm | Link
so , the rich can pollute and the poor cant?
the rich can drive cars and the poor cant?
time to move away from this country, its just not worth living here any more.
Comment by rob — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:48 am | Link
so , the rich can pollute and the poor cant?
the rich can drive cars and the poor cant?
time to move away from this country, its just not worth living here any more.
Comment by rob — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:48 am | Link
so , the rich can pollute and the poor cant?
the rich can drive cars and the poor cant?
time to move away from this country, its just not worth living here any more.
Comment by rob — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:49 am | Link
the amount of miles i drive daily even if tax discs were scrapped and fuel was free it would put me out of business.
Comment by ian davies — 12 Feb 2007 on 7:06 am | Link
there say that there are 7 millon more cars on the road in since 1998 i can bet most of these car are from people that were not in the country at that time and that is the goverments fualt anyway. most people have to travel farther as public services (hospitals, schools, libreys and so on and so on)have cut and cut is this there big plan to cut services and then charge us to reech them and pay to park. the working class in this country pay for eveyone and it’s about time we took a stand.
Comment by jason potter — 12 Feb 2007 on 8:47 am | Link
there say that there are 7 millon more cars on the road in since 1998 i can bet most of these car are from people that were not in the country at that time and that is the goverments fualt anyway. most people have to travel farther as public services (hospitals, schools, libreys and so on and so on)have cut and cut is this there big plan to cut services and then charge us to reech them and pay to park. the working class in this country pay for eveyone and it’s about time we took a stand.
Comment by jason potter — 12 Feb 2007 on 8:47 am | Link
I pay \xA3200 p.a. in road tax, more in real terms than at any time in the past, and yet our roads are in a disgusting state of repair. My local council seems to think that dumping a barrow load of cold bitumen in the worst potholes is all it has to do. But the road structures beneath continue to crumble. I recently visited Portugal on a house-hunting trip, and found even their rural roads to be in far better condition than ours. So please Labour, stop yabbering on about this scheme and that, recognise that road travel outside of cities is the ONLY way to travel, and provide us with a road network befitting that of a G8 nation before everyone with an IQ of more than 50 deserts this decrepit nation for a life overseas.
Comment by Neil Reed — 12 Feb 2007 on 8:51 am | Link
I say No to road toll pricing - this (and previous) governments have milked the motorist for decades while doing little to address the issue of overcrowding and polution. Investment in public transport, provision of buses to take children to and from school (by legislation if necessary) and more legislation to force vehicle manufacturers to produce engines with lower emmissions would be among issues that if addressed would greatly assist in resolving this problem. The current proposals will only result in stealth taxes for Mr Brown to fritter away on causes such as Iraq
Comment by Peter Mitchell — 12 Feb 2007 on 8:59 am | Link
I say No to road toll pricing - this (and previous) governments have milked the motorist for decades while doing little to address the issue of overcrowding and polution. Investment in public transport, provision of buses to take children to and from school (by legislation if necessary) and more legislation to force vehicle manufacturers to produce engines with lower emmissions would be among issues that if addressed would greatly assist in resolving this problem. The current proposals will only result in stealth taxes for Mr Brown to fritter away on causes such as Iraq
Comment by Peter Mitchell — 12 Feb 2007 on 9:00 am | Link
I say No to road toll pricing - this (and previous) governments have milked the motorist for decades while doing little to address the issue of overcrowding and polution. Investment in public transport, provision of buses to take children to and from school (by legislation if necessary) and more legislation to force vehicle manufacturers to produce engines with lower emmissions would be among issues that if addressed would greatly assist in resolving this problem. The current proposals will only result in stealth taxes for Mr Brown to fritter away on causes such as Iraq
Comment by Peter Mitchell — 12 Feb 2007 on 9:00 am | Link
I say No to road toll pricing - this (and previous) governments have milked the motorist for decades while doing little to address the issue of overcrowding and polution. Investment in public transport, provision of buses to take children to and from school (by legislation if necessary) and more legislation to force vehicle manufacturers to produce engines with lower emmissions would be among issues that if addressed would greatly assist in resolving this problem. The current proposals will only result in stealth taxes for Mr Brown to fritter away on causes such as Iraq
Comment by Peter Mitchell — 12 Feb 2007 on 9:01 am | Link
I say No to road toll pricing - this (and previous) governments have milked the motorist for decades while doing little to address the issue of overcrowding and polution. Investment in public transport, provision of buses to take children to and from school (by legislation if necessary) and more legislation to force vehicle manufacturers to produce engines with lower emmissions would be among issues that if addressed would greatly assist in resolving this problem. The current proposals will only result in stealth taxes for Mr Brown to fritter away on causes such as Iraq
Comment by Peter Mitchell — 12 Feb 2007 on 9:03 am | Link
It has been said before I know but the rich will drive while the poor will have to walk - wouldn’t it be more fair if fuel was rationed and we all had the same allowance.This would make everybody think about how they used their cars and encourage smaller and more economical vehicles
Comment by bill harvey — 12 Feb 2007 on 10:31 am | Link
It has been said before I know but the rich will drive while the poor will have to walk - wouldn’t it be more fair if fuel was rationed and we all had the same allowance.This would make everybody think about how they used their cars and encourage smaller and more economical vehicles
Comment by bill harvey — 12 Feb 2007 on 10:32 am | Link
The proposed charges are simply another dictatorial way for the government to tax us and play Big Brother by spying on us.Exactly the same process as speed cameras and the extra charges for rubbish collection they are suggesting and those spy-in-the-dustbin gadgets.

People need cars in modern society, and this tax would simply return us to the ninetenth century, when the poor walked and the rich rode on horseback or in carriages. Most pensioners with cars, for instance, would have to lose them.

Resist this, folks, with all your might!
Comment by Ian West — 12 Feb 2007 on 11:12 am | Link
Many millions of British people still enjoy staying in the UK for their holidays. Should the road toll be introduced then I see Scotland, Wales,Conwall and many other areas that rely on tourism becoming desolate areas as far as tourism is concerned. Will this government compensate the tourism industry for the losses involved by people booking holidays abroad, or will they tax these holidays also to make them uneconomical?

The loss of tourism revenue to these areas will have a devestating effect on their people and economies.
Comment by T Wiltshire — 12 Feb 2007 on 11:29 am | Link
Many millions of British people still enjoy staying in the UK for their holidays. Should the road toll be introduced then I see Scotland, Wales,Conwall and many other areas that rely on tourism becoming desolate areas as far as tourism is concerned. Will this government compensate the tourism industry for the losses involved by people booking holidays abroad, or will they tax these holidays also to make them uneconomical?

The loss of tourism revenue to these areas will have a devestating effect on their people and economies.
Comment by T Wiltshire — 12 Feb 2007 on 11:29 am | Link
Many millions of British people still enjoy staying in the UK for their holidays. Should the road toll be introduced then I see Scotland, Wales,Conwall and many other areas that rely on tourism becoming desolate areas as far as tourism is concerned. Will this government compensate the tourism industry for the losses involved by people booking holidays abroad, or will they tax these holidays also to make them uneconomical?

The loss of tourism revenue to these areas will have a devestating effect on their people and economies.
Comment by T Wiltshire — 12 Feb 2007 on 11:30 am | Link
Lets invest our country’s money in the replacing all the railsystems that were ripped up and destroyed in the 1960’s in favour of the car.

We can not reduce congestion when there is no decent alternative to car travel.

Without investment in a a decent, state owned, economical and efficient rail system, the United Kingdom’s infrastucture is doomed to eternal gridlock.
Comment by Susan Gibbs — 12 Feb 2007 on 12:45 pm | Link
Lets invest our country’s money in the replacing all the railsystems that were ripped up and destroyed in the 1960’s in favour of the car.

We can not reduce congestion when there is no decent alternative to car travel.

Without investment in a a decent, state owned, economical and efficient rail system, the United Kingdom’s infrastucture is doomed to eternal gridlock.
Comment by Susan Gibbs — 12 Feb 2007 on 12:46 pm | Link
Road charges for each journey will only penalise people like myself and my husband who live in the countryside, too far from rail links and more than a short bike ride to the nearest town. We only have one vehicle and would be stranded without it, and the thought of paying for each journey is just horrifying - we already pay our road tax and higher fuel costs than urban drivers.

If money needs to be raised from motorists, I don’t disagree that the unnecassary urban 4×4 drivers and countless multi-car families (dad, mum, family car, teenagers etc) should pay additional costs for such luxuries. A toll on each motorway journey or a daily usage fee is also understandable and in line with the continent.

However the thing i am most sickened by is the suggestion that all car journies would be tracked. This is utterly deplorable and i feel would be breaking all our civil liberties. All we need now is the introduction of ID cards and the BIG BROTHER government will have us all under observation 24hrs per day. This must be stopped before George Orwell’s vision comes chillingly close to call.
Comment by HC, Norfolk — 12 Feb 2007 on 1:08 pm | Link
RIP OFF UK
GOVEMENT IS WAISTING THE MONEY SPENDING IT ON THEMSELVES.

I have been in the UK for 5 YEARS, BUT THIS OF TAXING THE GENERAL MOTORIST PER MILES/KILOMETER IS THE BIGGEST CON, THIS LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS COME UP WITH…

YOU PAY MOT, CAR TAX, TAX ON FUEL, TAX ON TOLL-CROSSINGS…ETC. . . .

ALL THESE ADDISIONAL TAXES IS JUST MAKING THE WORKING CLASS GET POORER AND POORER. IS THE GOVERMENT REALLY THINKING ITS HELPING THE CAUSE TAXING THE GENERAL WORKING CLASS WHO HAVE TO USE THERE CARS FOR GENERAL TRANSPORT AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSFER IS A RIP OFF. I PAID ONE WAY TRAIN TICKET FRON LONDON(VICTORIA) TO MANCHESTER \xA3101. I’M STILL PAYING THIS OFF ON MY CREDIT CARD. THIS WOULD HAVE COST ME IN FUEL LESS THAN \xA315 AS i DRIVE A SMALL VERY FUEL EFFICENT CAR. NOW BROWNY POINTS DRIVING A FUEL EFFICEINT CARIN THIS COUNTRY.

THE GOVERMENT RELEASED A REPORT FOR TRAVEL EXSPENSES A MONTH OR TWO AGO, SPENDING ON HEALTH MINSITER ETC USING THE TAX PAYERS MONEY BLOWING AWAY, A FEW MILLION IN TRAVEL. THAT MOST OF IT ON BLACK CABS IN LONDON AND SIROUNDING.

PLEASE LET US ALL STAND TOGETHER AN APPEAL AGAINST THE STUPIDITY FROM SOME POEPLE IN GOVERNEMENT , BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO RUINE LIVES
Comment by Werner — 12 Feb 2007 on 1:18 pm | Link
RIP OFF UK
GOVEMENT IS WAISTING THE MONEY SPENDING IT ON THEMSELVES.

I have been in the UK for 5 YEARS, BUT THIS OF TAXING THE GENERAL MOTORIST PER MILES/KILOMETER IS THE BIGGEST CON, THIS LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS COME UP WITH…

YOU PAY MOT, CAR TAX, TAX ON FUEL, TAX ON TOLL-CROSSINGS…ETC. . . .

ALL THESE ADDISIONAL TAXES IS JUST MAKING THE WORKING CLASS GET POORER AND POORER. IS THE GOVERMENT REALLY THINKING ITS HELPING THE CAUSE TAXING THE GENERAL WORKING CLASS WHO HAVE TO USE THERE CARS FOR GENERAL TRANSPORT AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSFER IS A RIP OFF. I PAID ONE WAY TRAIN TICKET FRON LONDON(VICTORIA) TO MANCHESTER \xA3101. I’M STILL PAYING THIS OFF ON MY CREDIT CARD. THIS WOULD HAVE COST ME IN FUEL LESS THAN \xA315 AS i DRIVE A SMALL VERY FUEL EFFICENT CAR. NOW BROWNY POINTS DRIVING A FUEL EFFICEINT CARIN THIS COUNTRY.

THE GOVERMENT RELEASED A REPORT FOR TRAVEL EXSPENSES A MONTH OR TWO AGO, SPENDING ON HEALTH MINSITER ETC USING THE TAX PAYERS MONEY BLOWING AWAY, A FEW MILLION IN TRAVEL. THAT MOST OF IT ON BLACK CABS IN LONDON AND SIROUNDING.

PLEASE LET US ALL STAND TOGETHER AN APPEAL AGAINST THE STUPIDITY FROM SOME POEPLE IN GOVERNEMENT , BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO RUINE LIVES
Comment by Werner — 12 Feb 2007 on 1:19 pm | Link
I am not against this road tax as all my driving is in connection with work. My employer will pay and I’ll to the customer site quicker.
Comment by wingnut — 12 Feb 2007 on 1:44 pm | Link
I am not against this road tax as all my driving is in connection with work. My employer will pay and I’ll to the customer site quicker.
Comment by wingnut — 12 Feb 2007 on 1:45 pm | Link
I think it is important to note that this scheme would cost millions. Surely there are other more cost effective ways of ensuring sustainable transport? Assuming this would be a paid at a flat rate, per mile, it would significantly prohibit poorer members of society, increasing the wealth gap.
Comment by Luke Blaskett — 12 Feb 2007 on 2:19 pm | Link
I strongly disagree with the goverment’s plans to charge road charging. More taxation before I even walk out the door to go to work!!!

Gary Lewis
Comment by Gary Lewis — 12 Feb 2007 on 2:56 pm | Link
Do the government realy think we will accept being charged an extra \xA31000 per car per year for the privelidge of little significant road building over the last 30 years. We are being conned - they are charging us to save money. Once again the motorist is being treated as the cash cow.
Comment by ackie Lewis — 12 Feb 2007 on 2:59 pm | Link
let the mps go on the minimun wage that we are in rural areas with little public transport that takes an age to get from a/b then they to would need there car and realise the true cost of living great if you are in london with everthing on your doorstep or sitting in there backseat being driven around
Comment by kevin sedgeman — 12 Feb 2007 on 3:29 pm | Link
let the mps go on the minimun wage that we are in rural areas with little public transport that takes an age to get from a/b then they to would need there car and realise the true cost of living great if you are in london with everthing on your doorstep or sitting in there backseat being driven around
Comment by kevin sedgeman — 12 Feb 2007 on 3:30 pm | Link
Pointless excercise as only the private motorist will pay. It will have no effect on the company car driver who in my opionion are not taxed enough.
Comment by Brian Russell — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:16 pm | Link
Pointless excercise as only the private motorist will pay. It will have no effect on the company car driver who in my opionion are not taxed enough.
Comment by Brian Russell — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:17 pm | Link
I DO NOT THINK THAT THE NEW ROAD TAX IS A GOOD IDEA AT ALL.I HAVE 2 YOUNG CHILDREN AND LIVE IN PRIVATE RENTED ACCOMMODATION AS THERE ARE NO COUNCIL HOUSES AVAILIBLE YES I DO WORK AND HAVE TO DO AT LEAST 60HOURS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR MY FAMILY AS IT IS.
Comment by MARTIN GLOVER — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:23 pm | Link
I DO NOT THINK THAT THE NEW ROAD TAX IS A GOOD IDEA AT ALL.I HAVE 2 YOUNG CHILDREN AND LIVE IN PRIVATE RENTED ACCOMMODATION AS THERE ARE NO COUNCIL HOUSES AVAILIBLE YES I DO WORK AND HAVE TO DO AT LEAST 60HOURS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR MY FAMILY AS IT IS.
Comment by MARTIN GLOVER — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:23 pm | Link
Just another example of new labours answer to any problem. Tax it. And of course it’s just a coincidence that this increases government revenue !!!
Comment by Roger Morton — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:27 pm | Link
This insiduos proposal to tax, yet again, the travelling motorist is another example of a Government lacking ANY other ideas to solve a difficult situation. Their usual answer is to charge us,and believe that WE will appreciate their efforts because THEY think they are right. I do NOT believe this set of NO-HOPERS have an honest bone in their bodies
It is about time that they listened to the People of this country, who are their Masters and NOT their Minions !!!
Comment by Norman Elley — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:31 pm | Link
This insiduos proposal to tax, yet again, the travelling motorist is another example of a Government lacking ANY other ideas to solve a difficult situation. Their usual answer is to charge us,and believe that WE will appreciate their efforts because THEY think they are right. I do NOT believe this set of NO-HOPERS have an honest bone in their bodies
It is about time that they listened to the People of this country, who are their Masters and NOT their Minions !!!
Comment by Norman Elley — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:32 pm | Link
This insiduos proposal to tax, yet again, the travelling motorist is another example of a Government lacking ANY other ideas to solve a difficult situation. Their usual answer is to charge us,and believe that WE will appreciate their efforts because THEY think they are right. I do NOT believe this set of NO-HOPERS have an honest bone in their bodies
It is about time that they listened to the People of this country, who are their Masters and NOT their Minions !!!
Comment by Norman Elley — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:32 pm | Link
Typical of this tax crazy government. When stupid policies create a cash flow shortage the answer is always the same, tax them and tax them hard, especially the motorists, we need the money, they can do without it.
I just hope the public remember these money raising taxes when it comes to the next election.
Comment by G Booth — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:35 pm | Link
You cannot achieve road pricing without knowing exactly where each vehicle in the country is 24 hours a day. Are we really to believe that government and its agencies will not use this information for other matters, I call it spying on the citizen. How long before the revenue and customs have access to the information to check expenses claims to the exact mile? how long long before they track individuals with an implanted "chip" so they know where we all are all the time.

Yes, an "Orwellian" vision of the future of which I want no part. We should have legal protection from Government of this kind and the public should be able to vote to stop such proposals via a referendum just as they have in some states in the USA. Power to the people!

John Jeffrey
Comment by John Jeffrey — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:43 pm | Link
You cannot achieve road pricing without knowing exactly where each vehicle in the country is 24 hours a day. Are we really to believe that government and its agencies will not use this information for other matters, I call it spying on the citizen. How long before the revenue and customs have access to the information to check expenses claims to the exact mile? how long long before they track individuals with an implanted "chip" so they know where we all are all the time.

Yes, an "Orwellian" vision of the future of which I want no part. We should have legal protection from Government of this kind and the public should be able to vote to stop such proposals via a referendum just as they have in some states in the USA. Power to the people!

John Jeffrey
Comment by John Jeffrey — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:44 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:48 pm | Link
IF PUBLIC TRANSPORT LIKE BUSES WERE COSTED ON EMMISSIONS HOW MUCH PER HEAD PER YEAR WOULD IT COST COMPARED TO AN AVERAGE COMPANY CAR, PUBLIC TRANSPORT IS DIRTY SMELLY AND UNRELIABLE. I WOULD WELCOME USING A BUS RATHER THAT MY OWN CAR IF IT WAS POSSIBLE.
Comment by DARYL WRIGHT — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:49 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:49 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:49 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:50 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:50 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:51 pm | Link
highway robbery!!! just another way of getting the normal working man of the road.had a bloody enough of fuel taxes, this would put me out of business and home!
Comment by N E KISS — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:51 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:51 pm | Link
highway robbery!!! just another way of getting the normal working man of the road.had a bloody enough of fuel taxes, this would put me out of business and home!
Comment by N E KISS — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:52 pm | Link
Again, the ordinary people of the country must pay for some half-baked scheme which will cost millions to set up and millions to run, making fortunes for some unknown cronies of this Government. And we will be much the poorer and worse off !!!
I object to being surveyed wherever I go in my PRIVATE vehicle, by some Government Department who will no doubt "sell off" the information they gain to other organisations without my knowledge or consent, and this goes against every ethic that has been a standard in this country of ours for hundreds of years.

FREEDOM !!!
Comment by Doris E.ELLEY — 12 Feb 2007 on 6:52 pm | Link
we should not be made to pay road charges we already pay enough with fuel charges
Comment by alan

» Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Road Charging Petition

361 Comments »