Tax Tax Tax on drivers - Government response.
Discussion
Following on from Blueyes post, the Government have responded to this petition too:
The Prime Minister's Office sent me their response to that petition:
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10787.asp
Looks like they'll be determined to go ahead with their road pricing (pay as you go) policies.
I suspect the main petition will get a similar response. They are trying to meet the terms of the Kyoto Agreement that they signed us up to, and taxing poorer drivers off the roads seems to be how they're committed to going about it.
Petition to the Prime Minister said:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to consider strongly whether the constant and punishing taxation
of road users is realistically going to alter any environmental
issues when industry and others have a far greater output of
greenhouse gases and pollutants, and to bring Britain line with
the rest of the world on this issue.
of road users is realistically going to alter any environmental
issues when industry and others have a far greater output of
greenhouse gases and pollutants, and to bring Britain line with
the rest of the world on this issue.
The Prime Minister's Office sent me their response to that petition:
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10787.asp
Looks like they'll be determined to go ahead with their road pricing (pay as you go) policies.
Government said:
Measures to reduce road transport will account for savings of nearly 7 million tonnes of carbon a year in 2010; almost a quarter of the reductions made in the Climate Change Programme.
I suspect the main petition will get a similar response. They are trying to meet the terms of the Kyoto Agreement that they signed us up to, and taxing poorer drivers off the roads seems to be how they're committed to going about it.
This whole green thing is just a wonderful excuse to raise tax from any soft target available. Even Bliar admitted (in what must have been an unguarded moment) the UK only emitted 2% of all CO2 and that China would wipe out anything we did in a short time even if the whole of the UK were to generate no "nasty" emissions at all.
deeps said:
<SNIP>
I suspect the main petition will get a similar response. They are trying to meet the terms of the Kyoto Agreement that they signed us up to, and taxing poorer drivers off the roads seems to be how they're committed to going about it.
I disagree. Too many people have signed that one for it to "die" with a simple bit of linking to stock responses. If they try that, there will (well... should) be a public and media outrage.
If they do try that, then it is up to us to write to our MP's and Newspapers. We all took the first brave step by putting our names & addresses onto a petition against a policy onto a computer owned by the Government.
If we value our cars, privacy, pockets and democracy, we should all have the guts to take the next step if necessary; haranging our MP's and media until they squeak enough and make a big issue out of it.
deeps said:
Following on from Blueyes post, the Government have responded to this petition too:
The Prime Minister's Office sent me their response to that petition:
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10787.asp
Looks like they'll be determined to go ahead with their road pricing (pay as you go) policies.
I suspect the main petition will get a similar response. They are trying to meet the terms of the Kyoto Agreement that they signed us up to, and taxing poorer drivers off the roads seems to be how they're committed to going about it.
Petition to the Prime Minister said:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to consider strongly whether the constant and punishing taxation
of road users is realistically going to alter any environmental
issues when industry and others have a far greater output of
greenhouse gases and pollutants, and to bring Britain line with
the rest of the world on this issue.
of road users is realistically going to alter any environmental
issues when industry and others have a far greater output of
greenhouse gases and pollutants, and to bring Britain line with
the rest of the world on this issue.
The Prime Minister's Office sent me their response to that petition:
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10787.asp
Looks like they'll be determined to go ahead with their road pricing (pay as you go) policies.
Government said:
Measures to reduce road transport will account for savings of nearly 7 million tonnes of carbon a year in 2010; almost a quarter of the reductions made in the Climate Change Programme.
I suspect the main petition will get a similar response. They are trying to meet the terms of the Kyoto Agreement that they signed us up to, and taxing poorer drivers off the roads seems to be how they're committed to going about it.
Notice that, like so much that these manipulative swine do, they have already decided that road transport will be reduced.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
flemke said:
Notice that, like so much that these manipulative swine do, they have already decided that road transport will be reduced.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
But ....
They decided that road transport would be reduced when they came to power in 1997. Does anybody else remember John Prescott saying if he didn't reduce congestion he would have failed?
He didn't do it then - he failed.
They won't do it in the future either - they'll fail.
The simple facts of the matter are that people like using cars, and they are going to continue to do so whatever hare-brained scheme the government come up with, trying to play the environmental card or not.
rs1952 said:
flemke said:
Notice that, like so much that these manipulative swine do, they have already decided that road transport will be reduced.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
But ....
They decided that road transport would be reduced when they came to power in 1997. Does anybody else remember John Prescott saying if he didn't reduce congestion he would have failed?
He didn't do it then - he failed.
They won't do it in the future either - they'll fail.
The simple facts of the matter are that people like using cars, and they are going to continue to do so whatever hare-brained scheme the government come up with, trying to play the environmental card or not.
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
vonhosen said:
rs1952 said:
flemke said:
Notice that, like so much that these manipulative swine do, they have already decided that road transport will be reduced.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
But ....
They decided that road transport would be reduced when they came to power in 1997. Does anybody else remember John Prescott saying if he didn't reduce congestion he would have failed?
He didn't do it then - he failed.
They won't do it in the future either - they'll fail.
The simple facts of the matter are that people like using cars, and they are going to continue to do so whatever hare-brained scheme the government come up with, trying to play the environmental card or not.
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
Is it still at that level or has gone up again (or down even further)?
Major Bloodnok said:
vonhosen said:
rs1952 said:
flemke said:
Notice that, like so much that these manipulative swine do, they have already decided that road transport will be reduced.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
But ....
They decided that road transport would be reduced when they came to power in 1997. Does anybody else remember John Prescott saying if he didn't reduce congestion he would have failed?
He didn't do it then - he failed.
They won't do it in the future either - they'll fail.
The simple facts of the matter are that people like using cars, and they are going to continue to do so whatever hare-brained scheme the government come up with, trying to play the environmental card or not.
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
Is it still at that level or has gone up again (or down even further)?
I believe that it is now about 15% less than pre-CC levels.
As we know, Liar Livingstone has rammed through the CC extension despite widespread oppostion to it. It will come into effect next month.
This is the great part: Livingstone's own people are admitting that the extension will increase central London traffic by 7%.
flemke said:
Major Bloodnok said:
vonhosen said:
rs1952 said:
flemke said:
Notice that, like so much that these manipulative swine do, they have already decided that road transport will be reduced.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
No matter whether technology provides massive improvements to GG emissions, no matter whether other parts of the world go crazy and their emissions dwarf anything that Britain could conceivably do, no matter how important road transport is to the populace to whom these self-important louts are responsible, they have determined our future - like it or not.
But ....
They decided that road transport would be reduced when they came to power in 1997. Does anybody else remember John Prescott saying if he didn't reduce congestion he would have failed?
He didn't do it then - he failed.
They won't do it in the future either - they'll fail.
The simple facts of the matter are that people like using cars, and they are going to continue to do so whatever hare-brained scheme the government come up with, trying to play the environmental card or not.
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
Is it still at that level or has gone up again (or down even further)?
I believe that it is now about 15% less than pre-CC levels.
As we know, Liar Livingstone has rammed through the CC extension despite widespread oppostion to it. It will come into effect next month.
This is the great part: Livingstone's own people are admitting that the extension will increase central London traffic by 7%.
And I bet that pollution levels have gone up with all those dirty diesel buses without the cars to cleanse the air.
corozin said:
deeps said:
<SNIP>
I suspect the main petition will get a similar response. They are trying to meet the terms of the Kyoto Agreement that they signed us up to, and taxing poorer drivers off the roads seems to be how they're committed to going about it.
I disagree. Too many people have signed that one for it to "die" with a simple bit of linking to stock responses. If they try that, there will (well... should) be a public and media outrage.
If they do try that, then it is up to us to write to our MP's and Newspapers. We all took the first brave step by putting our names & addresses onto a petition against a policy onto a computer owned by the Government.
If we value our cars, privacy, pockets and democracy, we should all have the guts to take the next step if necessary; haranging our MP's and media until they squeak enough and make a big issue out of it.
vonhosen said:
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
Probably.
Having lived in Kensington for a couple of years, I can say that during that time we didn't drive anywhere in Central London. It's avoidable.
I now live in South Norfolk. Driving is *not* avoidable. If the cost of cars was doubled, then maybe some discretional driving would disappear - trips to the coast, for example. However, about 90% of it would remain.
vonhosen said:
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
i know at least 3 people who's working hours have simply extended a few hours a day to get to work before 7am and leave after 6:30pm... great
francisb said:
vonhosen said:
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
i know at least 3 people who's working hours have simply extended a few hours a day to get to work before 7am and leave after 6:30pm... great
Their choice, still eases "congestion" (which is the point) doesn't it ?
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 27th January 14:55
vonhosen said:
Their choice, still eases "congestion" (which is the point) doesn't it ?
dont think so. it just moves it, especially to 6:30pm+, but the politico's wouldnt know that as they leave much earlier in their cabs, ministerial cars and 1st class rail travel courtosy of us. if they really wanted to ease congestion they would rephase the traffic lights which are blatantly used to throttle traffic flow into the zone (particularly from the east)
francisb said:
vonhosen said:
Their choice, still eases "congestion" (which is the point) doesn't it ?
dont think so. it just moves it, especially to 6:30pm+, but the politico's wouldnt know that as they leave much earlier in their cabs, ministerial cars and 1st class rail travel courtosy of us. if they really wanted to ease congestion they would rephase the traffic lights which are blatantly used to throttle traffic flow into the zone (particularly from the east)
But it doesn't delay all of it past 6.30pm , it's reducing traffic at key times by spreading it over a wider time frame.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 27th January 15:08
vonhosen said:
francisb said:
vonhosen said:
Their choice, still eases "congestion" (which is the point) doesn't it ?
dont think so. it just moves it, especially to 6:30pm+, but the politico's wouldnt know that as they leave much earlier in their cabs, ministerial cars and 1st class rail travel courtosy of us. if they really wanted to ease congestion they would rephase the traffic lights which are blatantly used to throttle traffic flow into the zone (particularly from the east)
But it doesn't delay all of it past 6.30pm , it's reducing traffic at key times by spreading it over a wider time frame.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 27th January 15:08
It may well be, but the current situation is worse than the old situation for me, reduced congestion or not. Overall a reduction in the quality of life, although for those who dont notice the extra cost of the congestion charge I guess its better. Nice of Ken to favour the rich.
vonhosen said:
francisb said:
vonhosen said:
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
i know at least 3 people who's working hours have simply extended a few hours a day to get to work before 7am and leave after 6:30pm... great
Their choice, still eases "congestion" (which is the point) doesn't it ?
If the purpose of The Liar's "Congestion Charge" is to ease congestion, why are many automobiles exempt from it based not on whether they contribute to congestion but merely on their type of fuel?
Then we have Numbnuts's bendy buses. How does stripping the upper half off a double-decker and tacking it on to the rear of a bus, thereby making the bus twice as long, ease congestion?
Perhaps someone could explain how those idiotic pedal-powered "rickshaws" ease congestion.
Building out pavements to turn a dual-lane carriageway into a single: not really clear how that eases congestion, nor is it clear how deliberately mis-phasing traffic lights to induce pain on drivers eases congstion either.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
francisb said:
vonhosen said:
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
i know at least 3 people who's working hours have simply extended a few hours a day to get to work before 7am and leave after 6:30pm... great
Their choice, still eases "congestion" (which is the point) doesn't it ?
If the purpose of The Liar's "Congestion Charge" is to ease congestion, why are many automobiles exempt from it based not on whether they contribute to congestion but merely on their type of fuel?
Then we have Numbnuts's bendy buses. How does stripping the upper half off a double-decker and tacking it on to the rear of a bus, thereby making the bus twice as long, ease congestion?
Perhaps someone could explain how those idiotic pedal-powered "rickshaws" ease congestion.
Building out pavements to turn a dual-lane carriageway into a single: not really clear how that eases congestion, nor is it clear how deliberately mis-phasing traffic lights to induce pain on drivers eases congstion either.
Because it's about congestion but not just congestion.
A lot of users can't make it to the top of a double decker (no standing room up there either) but they can make it to the back of a bendy bus.
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
francisb said:
vonhosen said:
Didn't we see a drop in numbers when the congestion charge was brought in for London ?
About 30% IIRC was the figure quoted immeadiately after introduction.
i know at least 3 people who's working hours have simply extended a few hours a day to get to work before 7am and leave after 6:30pm... great
Their choice, still eases "congestion" (which is the point) doesn't it ?
If the purpose of The Liar's "Congestion Charge" is to ease congestion, why are many automobiles exempt from it based not on whether they contribute to congestion but merely on their type of fuel?
Then we have Numbnuts's bendy buses. How does stripping the upper half off a double-decker and tacking it on to the rear of a bus, thereby making the bus twice as long, ease congestion?
Perhaps someone could explain how those idiotic pedal-powered "rickshaws" ease congestion.
Building out pavements to turn a dual-lane carriageway into a single: not really clear how that eases congestion, nor is it clear how deliberately mis-phasing traffic lights to induce pain on drivers eases congstion either.
Because it's about congestion but not just congestion.
A lot of users can't make it to the top of a double decker (no standing room up there either) but they can make it to the back of a bendy bus.
No, that doesnt wash. If its about congestion at all then all the other points raised above, such as road width reduction, traffic light phasing etc. would have been fixed. I think the disabled bus user theory is spurious too, nothing to stop improved access on a double decker for old/disabled people (on the lower deck).
vonhosen said:
Because it's about congestion but not just congestion.
That is what it has turned out to be, but that is not what he campaigned on and got his "mandate" to impose.
Just like when he said that there were "no foreseeable circumstances" under which the charge would be raised above £5. Yet within less than two years the lying piece of shite raised it by 60 bloody percent, with the justification that he had "changed his mind".
vonhosen said:
A lot of users can't make it to the top of a double decker (no standing room up there either) but they can make it to the back of a bendy bus.
No problem - require that during busy periods the passengers who are able to climb stairs should default to the upper level. Unless more than half the passengers are unable to get up the stairs, which is not going to be the case, there would be enough seats on the lower level for less mobile riders.
Edited by flemke on Saturday 27th January 16:58
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff