Labour...

[kalniel]

I saw someone ask a Tory MP that - think it was Andrew Marr on the BBC, and the MP replied - well we don't want to give too much away before election time, otherwise Labour will steal our policies.

That's a bit daft - if they have ideas that are good for the country they should air them no matter who implements them.

It's not the ideas themselves that are important, it's the fact you can keep coming up with good ones that makes you a good person to be elected.

[cptwhite_uk]

To by fair mediaboy only managed to pick out 9 of 50 achievements to mock, and the mockery isn't even logical in all of the comments.

I mean what has giving free fruit to children in school, which is obviously a good thing, got to do with someone not eating curry and being labelled a racist. It's just a comment with no actual merit and is switching to a completely different argument in any case.

I'd agree with the general sentiment of "political correctness gone mad" in certain situations, but lets not over exaggerate as to how far this extends. When you explore the issues fully (and I feel the majority of people don't) I think the majority of proposals the government make are logical and well founded.

This car tax change for example makes complete and utter sense and while Gordon's words could be considered misleading (and I do take the point that is what most people have issue with) do you think the implementation is generally a good thing or a bad thing? I suspect most of us would generally agree it's a good idea to try and make lower pollutioning cars more attractive and unfortunately the simplest way to do that is by a financial incentive.

I think Brown isn't a bad prime minister he's just had a ****ty hand and lack PR, which unfortunately is probably just as important as your actually ability to do the job well these days.

The media have a lot to answer for, that's where I have my beef. They hold way too much power and aren't even elected!

[TheAnimus]

I suspect most of us would generally agree it's a good idea to try and make lower pollutioning cars more attractive and unfortunately the simplest way to do that is by a financial incentive.

I'm going to pick on that only because its very good example of how wording effects the awnser.

You like kittens don't you, your not supporting peodophile kitten drowners, you must support 42 day dettention?

The tax will do NOTHING to deter pollution will it. Why have such big catagories, rather than a simple function?

Why tax people on the car, rather than the amount of emissions? Someone like me who uses public transport for their commute, if i bought a car it would be a penis extention, with a big engine, but would only ever get driven at weekends, short pleasure trips.

So the 'green' bit is just an excuse to help raise money.

I think its not just that he's been a bad PM (10p,election etc.) its that he's been a gawd awful # 11. Borrowed money in sneaky ways so they don't show on balance sheet, and put us in a much worse position than we where 10 years ago with regards to the economy.

The very strange thing is i'm the kind of person that would do really well from a fairly large recession, so i should be singing his praises!

[cptwhite_uk]

The tax will do NOTHING to deter pollution will it.

Of course it will. It will make people buying a car consider it's road tax cost, which will subsequently deter (as a general rule) people from buying more polluting cars. That's the whole point of the policy and yes it will work because if people equally like Car A and Car B, but Car A costs less in road tax per year that might just swing their opinion in favour of the lower polluting model.

No people don't directly give a **** about pollution (generally, although this situation is improving) but legislation like this can influence the amount of pollution they create indirectly, which is what it's intended to do.

Why have such big catagories, rather than a simple function?. Why tax people on the car, rather than the amount of emissions?

Big catagories are implemented to simplify the scheme so it's more understandable to the average man in the street, and easier to process. Can you imagine the upset if you had to use an equation to cacluate the amount of road tax you had to pay based on such variables as miles driven, co2 particulates per m2, your average mpg (which is just as applicable a category). It simply isn't practical, I have no sympathy for someone who would drive a gas guzzler, even if it is only on weekends.

Although you're being defiant the fact an irregular driver is comparitively worse affected than a regular driver only goes the strengthen the argument as far as I'm concerned - get a less polluting car if you don't want to pay lots in tax for something you drive on a warm summer sunday afternoon (so that's 1 day a year then? )

[Lucio]

Of course it will. It will make people buying a car consider it's road tax cost, which will subsequently deter (as a general rule) people from buying more polluting cars. That's the whole point of the policy and yes it will work because if people equally like Car A and Car B, but Car A costs less in road tax per year that might just swing their opinion in favour of the lower polluting model.

It won't, and here's why. People will generally buy a car to meet their needs. If you have a big family, you buy a big car. If you're a lone woman, you'll often happily buy a 1 litre hatchback. The biggest group of people who buck this trend are the rich. They buy the cars that they think are the flashiest, and won't give a rats arse about emissions or road tax because to them, what's another couple of hundred quid a year??

Instead all the policy is doing is penalising people who either a) have to have a big car or b) are stuck with a really old vehicle and could only get whatever was on offer!

Economic policies will not effect climate change when targetted at the population, because they only penalise people who can't make any other choice anyway! It's a long term folly to think you'll make things better by increasing taxes. What's needed is serious research and investment in alternatives.

For example, instead of people travelling to work, why not offer tax breaks on IT expenditures that encourage working from home? Offer companies like Tesco's a subsidy for their home delivery services, because it's better to have one fuel effeciant new vehicle out on the road than 20 cars all making their own trips.

If you want to make things better, you'll never get there by making people's lives worse!

[schmunk]

In the modern age of (presumably) un'clock'able milometers, would it be feasible to introduce an annual mileage check (which could be done at MOT for older cars) and an extra box on V5 to report mileage?

TheAnimus' argument above, which was also my immediate thought on seeing the publicity around this announcement, holds a lot of water. Why should the Ferrari/Caterham/etc. owner pay much more to tax his little-used weekend toy than the rep driving 30,000 miles a year in diesel smugness?

[TheAnimus]

Big catagories are implemented to simplify the scheme so it's more understandable to the average man in the street, and easier to process. Can you imagine the upset if you had to use an equation to cacluate the amount of road tax you had to pay based on such variables as miles driven, co2 particulates per m2, your average mpg (which is just as applicable a category). It simply isn't practical, I have no sympathy for someone who would drive a gas guzzler, even if it is only on weekends.

Although you're being defiant the fact an irregular driver is comparitively worse affected than a regular driver only goes the strengthen the argument as far as I'm concerned - get a less polluting car if you don't want to pay lots in tax for something you drive on a warm summer sunday afternoon (so that's 1 day a year then? )

Generally speaking these cars are more expensive anyway. The fact of the matter is its a retrospective tax. If it was about green, it would only apply to new cars, rather than sting people who've bought a car already (and the idea of buying a new one is stupid, as its a waste of resources, making the car normally pollutes far more than the car ever will in 10 years of use).

So, let me get this straight it 'Strengthens' the argument for the tax, that someone who will pollute less, pays more?! WHAT THE HELL!? If you have a car thats 10 times as poluting, but only use it once a week, verses commuting 5 days. Get how little effect this has?

Now you don't strike me as the religious about environment type, but you've got to admit its not going to address the situation at all is it? All it is, is a tax for renenue collection. This is an important distinction many people don't get, espesually with things like the congestion charge (which generates no real revenue thanks to hudge running costs (see wikipedia for figures) its not for revenue collection, its for preventing people been on the road).

[cptwhite_uk]

The answer is simple - the alternatives are too complex to implement/monitor. I agree the suggestions are great ideas, but alas it's a complicated and mutli layered effort which just seems open to exploit, and their in lies the problem

[kalniel]

The answer is simple - the alternatives are too complex to implement/monitor. I agree the suggestions are great ideas, but alas it's a complicated and mutli layered effort which just seems open to exploit, and their in lies the problem

Well I think TheAnimus' alternative (which I'd agree with in preference to these tax changes) is to increase the fuel duty by a fair whack. Then the more you use the car the more tax you pay, and the less efficient the car the more tax you pay, and the harder you drive it the more tax you pay. And Vice versa of course. That's dead simple, no monitoring or implementation worries.

[Bluecube]

14) Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament
15) Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly
So that they can vote on our matters, influencing our lives whilst they live away from the majority of these changes... but the reverse isn't always true.

Who's "they"? Neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Welsh Assembly nor any of their members can vote on anything that involves England. Your argument is with the Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminister who do that! And you're right - it's a very unfair situation only kept in place by Labour because they relied so much on Scottish/ Welsh MPs to push through their daft policies. Thankfully both countries are seeing the light and realising that Labour sucks. I expect the next government (so long as it's not Labour!) to ensure that such a discrepancy is erased.

[TheAnimus]

The answer is simple - the alternatives are too complex to implement/monitor. I agree the suggestions are great ideas, but alas it's a complicated and mutli layered effort which just seems open to exploit, and their in lies the problem

Two VERY simple to implement ideas.

One make petrol prohibitatively expensive.... Ok might of been done already
New car fee, all new cars cary a tax which relates to their emmissions (not just carbon please), this function is worked out by the delear and by law has to be stated seperately (just like the APR rate).

Then those in really rueral areas could also get a reduction in their road tax to help cover the costs of fuel.

[Blitzen]

Labour are at the moment very unpopular and loosing voters left, right and centre due to the latest fiasco - the increases in Car taxes and fuel costs.

What I want to know is why Scotland/Wales have FREE PRESCRIPTIONS yet I have to fork out over 30 pounds a month for my medication just so I can function in a semi-normal fashion.

I also want to know how i ended up being dictated to by a PM thats bloddy Scottish!!!!!!!!!!

First thing we need to do is get someone running England thats actually English. Half the cabinet is bScottish for christ sake.

I SERIOUSLY doubt the Scots or Welsh would put up with an Englishman in charge of their assemblies.
I realise before anyone says that most things are still run in these countries from Westminster but they seem to get alot more from the system than we do./..........and lets face it, i will hazard a guess that the English pay the lions share in.

[Stewart]

Simple solution really. Firstly we give the Welsh and Scots complete independence from England. Alex Salmond becomes Scottish PM, Terry Griffiths the Welsh King.

Then we invade, conquer, and rule them all from Westminster. Simple.

Its the fact that we are still joined in a union that stops us from doing this, because we can't attack our own side. And we can't invade a principality that we already rule, because we already rule it... but if we handed it back and then invaded... WE COULD RULE IT!

I think its worth considering.

And once the whole island is under our control we go for the big one. We load up 100 ships with troops and set sail across the sea to... THE SHETLAND ISLANDS!

I've heard there are mountains of gold there, but they are guarded by a... CYCLOPS! And the Cyclops rides on a... GRIFFIN! And the griffin has the head of a... MEDUSA! And the Medusa rides atop a... CHIMERA! Which has the head of a... MARMOSET!

I'll stop now.

(The Marmoset rides atop a Kraken btw)

[Main]

Aye, Labour are dead in the water. The Tories have found themselves electable, christ knows how, and David Cameron would crush Brown into the floor if a general election were held now.

Probably true, but I doubt it would change much. I don't know if I have less faith in Brown or Cameron, since every time I've watched Prime Minister's questions, Cameron has been completely pathetic. Every time he's used arguements that consist of well thought out soundbites, which would be fine if they were followed by some weight to back them up, but they never are. This has left him open to be convincingly beaten by both Blair and Brown.

The devolution business is a bit weird, I'd like to know how the policies are paid for - do Scotland and Wales have seperate budgets or is England subsidising them?

[schmunk]

I suggest we line Hadrian's wall with TNT and Set Scotland Free (TM).

After that Wales.

Then Cornwall.

Then Norfolk.

After that we'll need a referendum to decide who to dispatch next.

[Andeh13]

What I want to know is why Scotland/Wales have FREE PRESCRIPTIONS yet I have to fork out over 30 pounds a month for my medication just so I can function in a semi-normal fashion.

Scottish (not sure about the welsh) students also dont pay university fees, being in the UK, it costs £3070 a year.

I suggest we line Hadrian's wall with TNT and Set Scotland Free (TM).

After that Wales.

Then Cornwall.

Then Norfolk.

After that we'll need a referendum to decide who to dispatch next.

schmunk for PM, +1 vote!