Comments on: Yes, I admit it, I agree with Labour

By: Riddiford of England

Riddiford of England — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:18:58 +0000

…and their CO2 emissions…

So whats wrong with lots of CO2 ?

IF IF it makes the earth warmer we are going to need much much more of it to head off the coming ice age.

As usual ANYTHING touched by our rulers is a shambles from beginning to end.
Keep all government out of it.

Understand this that Transport policy is not a Competence of our Provincial government.
EU Directives have been promulgated and it is not within the remit of westminster to defer.

By: Madasafish

Madasafish — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:05:32 +0000

Now lets see: the easisest way to defeat the system is to clone a car.
Since everything is automated it will take ages to detect.. apart from the original user whose car was cloned..

And of course, forein registered cars will not count.

I think that – given past incompetence – it will prove a great source of income for criminals,

As for not using the data, the police will of course and the councils and there willl be zero privacy…

Sales of small explosive devices to destroy road mounted sensors would soar away…

By: patently

patently — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:06:39 +0000

Bill:

>> Have you given Osbourne a ring yet?

I’m waiting for him to call me….

By: derigueur

derigueur — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:43:21 +0000

Alan B’stard approves this opinion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/New_Statesman-rick.jpg/180px-New_Statesman-rick.jpg

By: Snafu

Snafu — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:35:57 +0000

LFAT, two points. Motorists pay £45bn per annum in taxes whilst only £5bn is spent on roads so you don’t subsidise me. It’s a shame that I am expected to subsidise railways despite never using them however.

Secondly, are we looking for short term solutions or long term solutions? I prefer long-term solutions, if you build more roads, people are bound to use them more if they are more convenient.

If road pricing does work and streets are as empty as they are on a Sunday morning, do you think more people would use them at 8.30am on a Monday morning!?!

By: Letters From A Tory

Letters From A Tory — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:23:48 +0000

Petrol is a close proxy but does not make people think about the pollution their cars are producing or seriously consider alternatives because often the alternatives don’t exist thanks to our woeful record of investing in transport infrastructure, particularly the rail network.

The congestion charge has been a terrible failure in terms of raising revenue, but the charging system has actually worked out alright. Shame the private sector are making such a mint out of it instead of the promised rejuvenation of London transport.

It’s interesting that not many people have complained about the theory of road pricing and have instead concentrated on the possibility of Labour introducing road pricing as the biggest cause for concern!

By: Bill Quango MP

Bill Quango MP — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:03:18 +0000

Patently

“Higher earners do pay more. 40% of a large number is more than 40% of a smaller number.”

“Given that, the fairest alternative form of road pricing is to tax something that is a close proxy for the amount of driving that someone does, Petrol and diesel, for example – which have the advantage that administration and collection are both capable of being done efficiently.”

You are on fire today… Devastating simplicity.
Have you given Osbourne a ring yet?

By: patently

patently — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:59:33 +0000

LFAT, road pricing as you characterise it is clearly A Good Thing. Our roads have to be paid for and such a system would do so fairly. But seriously, given the amount of data involved, the number of people to bill, the number of bills required, and the number of potential bill queries, do you seriously think that ANY government could actually bring the system you describe into effect – let alone Labour?

We all know what would happen if Labour did it. There would be draconian penalties for any failure by the driver, a great army would be recruited to administer it, and the costs would eat into the vast majority of the revenue so that it would in effect be anything but revenue-neutral.

Given that, the fairest alternative form of road pricing is to tax something that is a close proxy for the amount of driving that someone does. Petrol and diesel, for example – which have the advantage that administration and collection are both capabel of being done efficiently. Of course, it seems that fuel taxation is now at the upper limit of what the public will tolerate, which (in a democracy) should tell us something.

By: Stu

Stu — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:37:02 +0000

“I agree that Labour looked the country in the eyes and lied to them over the lottery”

That and so many other things…

By: Letters From A Tory

Letters From A Tory — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:42:59 +0000

Bill, I disagree that it is unfair. People driving on busy roads cause more pollution by cars that move slowly, which reduces air quality. Furthermore, busy roads require additional investment to maintain them. I agree that Labour looked the country in the eyes and lied to them over the lottery, but that is a matter of honesty and accountability rather than being a criticism of road pricing. The issue of overseas hauliers is something that infuriates me as I cannot see how anyone can justify letting them drive on our roads for free, but Labour are far too scared to do anything about it.

Snafu, someone has to pay to maintain the roads and motorways. Surely it should be the people who use the roads most who should pay for this maintenance instead of me paying through it with my taxes, even though I don’t own a car? Your suggestion that we can all choose an alternative form of transport or move house is pure fantasy and does not address the reality of investing in transport infrastructure.