Another day, another u-turn

For a goverment currently reeling from a series of embarassing u-turns on inheritance tax, super casinos, and their views on 24 hour licencing, you would think that the last thing they would want to set themselves up for was yet more allegations. However, it appears that is exactly what the government is doing after it shelved plans for a national road pricing scheme.

As predicted though the Department for Transport have made a vain attempt a spinning their way out of the situation by claiming that it was "rubbish to suggest the Government had ever planned a national road pricing scheme, insisting it had only put in place plans for local tolls".

The government really must have short memories at the moment, so let me help a bit. On 22nd February 2007, in a live webchat, the then Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman stated: "We can guarantee that we will respect privacy in a road pricing system. We are looking at ways to do this and one way is to have the money collected by a trusted third party."

So it is rubbish is it. The government have always planned a national pricing scheme, even Tony Blair admitted it, allbeit that we wouldn't see it for ten years though, so why lie.

The problem is that they government is so tired and without direction that it cannot get it's own spin right. After all, instead of distancing itself from the whole suggestion, it should have quoted another Ladyman statement he made on the same subject, in which he said "I promise this is a real debate. If we don't convince the public then road pricing simply won't happen." Now the easiest get out for the DoT would have been to say "we shelved it because we listened to you", but they couldn't even get that right.

The lies of Labour

Thursday 22nd February 2007.

Stephen Ladyman, Transport Minister: "I promise this is a real debate. If we don't convince the public then road pricing simply won't happen."

Friday 2nd March 2007.

Times Headline: Road Pricing: the plan. Britain will be divided into a patchwork of road-pricing zones where drivers will be charged varying rates, under a government plan to make them pay by the mile without tracking them on every road.

Stephen Ladyman, the Roads Minister, gave details of how the system would work in an attempt to address concerns raised by the 1.8 million drivers who signed a petition against road pricing.

Lies, Lies and more Lies! The people of Britiain of don't want it, but the government are still planning on making it happen.

Ladyman responds to road pricing questions

Transport Minister, Stephen Ladyboy Ladyman (sorry, I forgot Dizzy has a copyright on calling him that), has finally faced the critics over road pricing on his webchat, earlier this evening.

It's good that he has faced questioning on the subject, allbeit from the safety of being behind his computer, but there were a few points in the chat that he raised, that I have got a few issues with.

Firstly he stated, "I promise this is a real debate. If we don't convince the public then road pricing simply won't happen."

Sorry Stephen I don't believe that for a second, just look at Labour Mayor, Ken Livingstone and the "consultation" that was held on the c-charge extension. No-one wanted it, but it still happened.

Secondly, when asked about how information would be stored he replied, "We can guarantee that we will respect privacy in a road pricing system. We are looking at ways to do this and one way is to have the money collected by a trusted third party."

Nobody trusts this government with holding our information in a central database, let alone a third party.

Then was his answer to whether road pricing would be used to replace current road charges, ie. vehicle duty, he replied, "Because road pricing is about changing from the way we pay to use the roads today to a new way of paying to use the roads. In other words reviewing the current taxes on motorists would be part of the package. If we decide to go for a national system then it wouldn't be in place until at least 2015 and I have no way of knowing what decisions the chancellor might make in 2015."

Labour have yet to offset any new tax by replacing old ones, so I don't hold any hope for the future on that one. It is far more likely that road charging will be in addtion to other duties.

The final point, that made me cringe at just how much of a dream world he lives in, came at the end of the interview when he was asked how foreign visitors would have a "black box" fitted so that they will be charged. Stephen replied "They could 'hire' a box at the port of entry."

I had to laugh at his ignorance at this. After all, if it affects any of our EU neighbours, they will cry foul, push it through the European Parliament, Labour would back down and be walked all over, and not have to have the black box.

I do hope that this is not the only "consultation" on the subject. Londoners know only too well Labour tactics when it comes to consulting on road charges.

Ladyman to face critics of road pricing plans online

Do you, like me, think that the Tony Blair's reply to the road pricing petition was rubbish?

Well, it looks as though the government has put the Transport Minister, Stephen Ladyman, up as the sacrificial lamb to answer questions online tomorrow from 1600.

I can't think what the questions may be about.

Blair's email to road pricing petition

It has been expected since the weekend, at at 0205hrs this morrning it finally made it's ways into my inbox.

"Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely, Tony Blair"

To be honest, I was expecting that this would be his reply. It stinks of, so many of you have complained so I have to make it look like i'm listeningg, but you're going to get it anyway.

Pretty much like the translation of his interview with the observer on Sunday.

Mike Penning continues to support the motorist

I have to take my hat off again to Mike Penning, for standing up for the motorists with another Early Day Motion, which he submitted yesterday.

His latest EDM, no. 892, states:

"That this House recognises the need to take urgent action on reducing carbon emissions but believes the Government's plans to introduce road pricing using tracking technology is both unfair and intrusive and will undermine individual civil liberties; and believes that the road pricing model proposed will have a disproportionate impact on the poor and those drivers on fixed incomes and will be a tax on workers and those who have no alternative form of transport in particular rural communities."

This follows on from his previous EDM, no. 810, when he attacked the inappropriate use of speed cameras.

Bring in road pricing, or we cut your funding

In an attempt to get it's own way over road pricing, the Government is attempting to hold local authorities to ransom by forcing them into introducing congestion charging, by refusing to fund public transport schemes unless they are linked to a new tax on motorists.

According to a report in The Times "the Department for Transport has established a £1.4 billion fund for investment in local transport but has told councils that any bid for a share of the money must include congestion charging".

Local authority leaders have quite rightly accused the Government of trying to force their hand and make them take the risk of a backlash from drivers, by ensuring that they take for the blame for local initiatives, instead of the bad press that would be generated by a Nation Initiative.

So much for consultation. However, it gets worse. The report also states:

"The DfT has reneged on a promise to allow councils to offset congestion charging with a discount on other motoring taxes, such as fuel duty or vehicle excise duty. The rules state: “We have concluded that any rebating of revenues back to users, such as through national taxes, would be inappropriate for local schemes.”

The rules also make clear there will be a “secure lock-in mechanism to ensure that the road-pricing scheme is delivered as part of a package alongside the transport investment”.

Councils will also be banned from giving discounts to people such as nurses and shift workers who need their cars when there is little public transport."

Broken promises, bully boy tactics, forcing through legislation....are you beginning to notice a trend with this government.

Blair's response to the road pricing petition, translated.

It has been widely reported that Tony Blair is going to personally email all of the people who signed the road pricing petition, hoping to change their minds.

In an interview in today's Observer, Blair has said how he will use the email to try and set out his stall for road pricing, and show that he is prepared to engage in debate over the subject.

However, as we are so used to him spinning his way through policy making, I thought I'd help by translating it for him back into human.

"The million-strong e-petition against road pricing on the No 10 website is an opportunity, not because I share the petitioners' views - I don't - but because I know the country needs to have a full debate on how we tackle road congestion and this petition has helped spark it."

Translation: We've made a right balls up setting this petition site up, and now have to make it look like we listen.

"We have to remember that No 10's new e-petition service has not generated the views against road pricing that have been expressed by more than a million people. They were already there and it's not possible, wise or healthy for politicians to try and sweep them under the carpet.

Translation: We knew all along that you would hate it, but were hoping never to be pulled up on it, until after it was implented.

"For what's clear is the challenges we face are more complex than ever and that there are simply no easy answers -"

Translation: We will bring in road pricing whether you like it or not.

" - whether, for example, it's how we tackle climate change, provide affordable and sustainable pensions or secure future energy supplies"

Translation: We have to pay for out policy fuck-ups somehow.

"I also strongly believe that the more people understand the nature and scale of the problems, the more likely we will as a country reach the right decisions on the way forward."

Translation: Shut up moaning, do as you're told, and accept that this will come in.

"Over the next few days, I will be sending out a response to everyone who has signed the petition against road charging, explaining the problems the country faces and why I believe road charging is surely part of the answer here as it is in many other countries."

Translation: I'm only sending out this email to pretend to listen to your concerns, all you will actually receive in the email is my policy spiel to try and brain wash into accepting it.

"I'm not kidding myself that this will change people's views overnight."

Translation: I can see you're all pissed off, but I don't care.

"I am convinced, however, that the focus on this issue that the e-petition has brought about will help improve our understanding of the problems and the realisation that there are no cost-free answers."

Translation: You will end up paying, as we have run out of, or can't be bothered thinking up, any new ideas.

"And that surely has got to be good news for the health of our democracy and for the chances of our country coming up with the right and sustainable solutions to the long-term challenges we face."

Translation: By pretending to listen I look good, but my way is right, and you are all wrong.

Greenwich C-Charge Zone petition is launched

I have just spotted, over on the GreenwichWatch blog that another petition has been added to the Downing Street website.

In the same week that we have seen a petition gain over a million signatures against the implementation of road pricing, there is now a petition against the Greenwich Congestion Zone, that was revealed by GreenwichWatch last week, and then I added my opinions about a bit later.

The petiton states:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop the proposed Greenwich Congestion Charge from going ahead. London already has a 'congestion' zone that has NOT stopped people from driving into Central London. It is clearly just a money-making excercise that has no affect. We do not want anymore 'stealth taxes'. There are better ways to control the traffic and congestion in Greenwich. Charging people to drive in the area is not one of them!"

If you feel as strongly against this as I do then you should sign it. HERE.

Greenwich enters the stealth tax age

Not content with having dragged Greenwich's name into the gutter over the casino affair, the Leader of the Council has decided to try and implement the worst of all stealth taxes to grace us. Yes, a congestion charge!

I first read about this from the troublemakers GreenwichWatch, who do a superb job at humilating my local council on a regular basis. In fact, even the blogfather Iain Dale, had a pop a Greenwich Council for even contemplating a CC zone.

However, this is the sort of thing that come to expect from Greenwich, especially over the last couple of years from a media hungry leader. But what worried me more was Ken Livingstone putting his ugly seal of approval for this plan to go ahead. Well, Ken actually said "consultation", but if the western extension of the central London zone is anything to go by, that it means it will happen regardless.

As reported by GreenwichWatch on of the plans identified by the council includes the Blackwall tunnel southern approach, and southbound exit. Which, as every motorist in London knows, is the only viable river crossing for South East London!

So, (in full rant mode and suffering from sleep deprivation from working a night shift) as you can imagine, I wasn't best pleased to find a potential new congestion charge on my doorstep. Which, in turn, switched on my "conpiracy theory radar".

Apart from the usual taxing motorists, and the wanting of headlines by Mr Roberts, I thought of two possible theories.

The first is that the Labour run council, and specifically Mr Roberts, are currently blaming everyone execpt themselves for Greenwich's failure to land the super casino licence. They've even tried to blame anyone who supprted the bid, for not supporting it enough. So, as a result Greenwich is being told by AEG that it doesn't want to invest £350million into the borough anymore, and what better way of raising revenue is there. Yes, you guessed it tax motorists on the only viable river crossing for miles.

The second is based around an incident that occured all the way back in September, when Ken Livingstone tore shreads off of Chris Roberts, after he voted against the Labour Group on the ALG, and opposed the transfer of planning power to Livingstone from Government. So, by trying to implement a Ken policy an attempt to get back into his good books, or even a charm offfensive to get himself a London Assembly job, after all it is candidate selection time for all parties for next year's London wide elections.

So is this a case of Chris Roberts wanting to get back into Ken's good books as he has political ambitions of his own, or is this retribution for Greenwich losing out in the casino bid with motorists and residents being the ones penalised?

SHOCK: MP backs motorists

At last an MP that is on the side of the motorist!

Hemel Hempstead MP, Mike Penning, table an Early Day Motion about the over use of speed cameras on Britains roads.

In his EDM, no. 810, he states: "That this House notes that the number of speed cameras has risen dramatically on UK roads; further notes that the Government has admitted that not all of them are appropriately placed and that motorists are increasingly frustrated that many of them are installed as a cash raising mechanism; and calls on the Government to launch a thorough review of all speed camera locations leading to the removal of cameras which do not improve road safety".

And not a moment too soon.

Green outlook, or just the sound of a till ringing.

In the latest attempt by Gordon Brown to outflank David Cameron on green issues, he simply succeeds in showing everybody that he is a one trip pony.

This week saw the release of the study, commissioned by the chancellor, into improving Britain's transport system, and after sitting through Douglas Alexander defending it on Sunday AM, it is plain to see that the chancellor cannot get his eyes past the pound signs of a road pricing scheme.

Now, personally I agree that there needs to be a increase in "NEW" road schemes that involve toll roads, but a generic road pricing will simply be seen as more pennies for the treasury. In a nut shell, a car driving tax.

The spin so far has been that this is the way forward to ease congestion on our roads, lowering car usage, and improving the enviroment.

Now, when George Osbourne was interviewed, on the same programme as Douglas Alexander, he stated that any green taxes would be offset away from earnings, and on to things like carbon burning, ie driving cars. Which sounds a lot fairer, than simply increasing the tax burden on the public. After all, it's clear that Gordon cannot think of any other way than to take and not give back. That is an Old Labour way of thinking, and Gordon is at last showing his true colours the closer he gets to moving next door in Downing Street.

Labour do not know how to do joined up thinking when it comes to green issues, and this road pricing scheme is, unfortunately , just one of many soundbites from them.

Besides, the tax burden is alomst at bursting point, with many families stretched to the limit. This could break them.

Ken's at it again

Sorry, but back on to a local issue for me this lunchtime.

Ken's latest press conference earlier today confirmed what a lot of Londoners have believed for a long time. In that the Congestion Charge is more about taxing drivers than dealing with congestion.

In his speech, he advocated a sliding scale Congestion Charge, by 2010 which will be based on emissions levels. The upper limit of which will be set a £25-a-day for "gas-guzzling Chelsea Tractors", as Ken so eloquently calls them.

But it goes further than that! He also wants to turn the whole of London into a "Low Emissions Zone" which would result in some drivers being charged £25-a-day to drive anywhere in Greater London!!!!

Now, hang on a minute Ken, I thought this was meant to be about cutting Congestion.

I think Ken is overstepping the mark here just a tad. Although I agree that emissions from cars need to be controlled, it shouldn't be decided by a city mayor. Enviromental Taxes on cars (and lets be honest that's what this would be) should only be decided by Parliament in a Budget.

The only hope we have to stop this madness is that there is a Mayoral election, before this would come into force.