You're right.. I'd forgotten that. While he wouldn't say that it would actually force people closer to their work, it was one of the many things that might be considered! :k:
P-Lonka with a capital W!!!
ATB
DaveB :tab:
A Costly Big Brother!
Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry
-
alan cottrill
- Lightning
- Posts: 267
- Joined: 18 Apr 2006, 22:09
Just goes to show,WHAT JACKASSES the govenment is,they dont live in the real world,when will it sink into thier brains,that a £2000 increase in expenses per year,means people will end up on the dole,as they cannot put in pay claims of this size,and management cannot afford them.
If the govenment will not back down,then i suggest a national strike as the only way to get thier attention,then they might start to get the idea,that people are pissed off with them,and thier stupid ideas.
regards alan.
P.S. i am only to glad i did not vote for these idiots. :roll:
If the govenment will not back down,then i suggest a national strike as the only way to get thier attention,then they might start to get the idea,that people are pissed off with them,and thier stupid ideas.
regards alan.
P.S. i am only to glad i did not vote for these idiots. :roll:
The so called government of this once great country of ours published some numbers indicating that in the uk there was some were in the region of 2million cars with out tax, insurance , or MOT not to mention the drivers without uk valid drivers licences . Might I suggest that they put the police back on the road scrap the Gatos and take the scum off the road and leave the extra space to those of us who are all ready paying for it.
JT....
JT....
If you can keep your head about you, when everyone else is losing there's then perhaps your've misunderstood the situation
Can't wonder he faked a heart attak can you - I know would.jonesey2k wrote:Tony Blair's legacy: A knackered Britain and an ugly wife.
Talk about "above and beyond the call of duty"
I mean, how many times has he got her pregnant?
Graham
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
If you believe this guff, you will believe anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
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
Followed by this rubbish
Further information
Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.
This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.
You can also read the Eddington Report in full.
You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.
Graham
There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.
If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email [email protected]
E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
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
Followed by this rubbish
Further information
Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.
This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.
You can also read the Eddington Report in full.
You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.
Graham
There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.
If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email [email protected]
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I think we have to face up to reality here, the government will do what they damn well want.
We simply don't have the balls, as a nation, to do anything about it anymore.
1.8Million signing the petition? so what! The population of London is 7.5million (estimated) so 1.8 million is nowhere near enough people for the government to consider it a worthy opinion.
I'd have to agree that a nationwide strike would be the only way to get their attention, however who can really say they'd have the balls to not go into work for a week as protest?
Most people would get reprimanded or the sack as it isnt the employers that should have to suffer.
It looks like we are screwed whatever happens. Not enough people take part in anything these days to make an impact, as has been seen by this petition, we think that 1.8million signatures is massive - im more than impressed myself, but it just isn't enough.
Its a bloody shame as I don't want to have to leave this country, but pretty soon I'll have no choice, I am a skilled worker with qualifications, I can barely afford my Car insurance (I'm under 25) there is no way in hell I can afford a mortgage for anything other than a 1 bedroom bedsit, the trains cost £8 single way to do a 14 mile journey to the nearest big town and how is that a way to live?!
For all those of you with a house, think about your kids or grand kids. How are they going to be able to afford a house, when a single bedroom flat around here costs £160k+ and the minimum wage for a 8 hour working day is £135 a week after tax and NI.
I tell ya, we are all buggered!
We simply don't have the balls, as a nation, to do anything about it anymore.
1.8Million signing the petition? so what! The population of London is 7.5million (estimated) so 1.8 million is nowhere near enough people for the government to consider it a worthy opinion.
I'd have to agree that a nationwide strike would be the only way to get their attention, however who can really say they'd have the balls to not go into work for a week as protest?
Most people would get reprimanded or the sack as it isnt the employers that should have to suffer.
It looks like we are screwed whatever happens. Not enough people take part in anything these days to make an impact, as has been seen by this petition, we think that 1.8million signatures is massive - im more than impressed myself, but it just isn't enough.
Its a bloody shame as I don't want to have to leave this country, but pretty soon I'll have no choice, I am a skilled worker with qualifications, I can barely afford my Car insurance (I'm under 25) there is no way in hell I can afford a mortgage for anything other than a 1 bedroom bedsit, the trains cost £8 single way to do a 14 mile journey to the nearest big town and how is that a way to live?!
For all those of you with a house, think about your kids or grand kids. How are they going to be able to afford a house, when a single bedroom flat around here costs £160k+ and the minimum wage for a 8 hour working day is £135 a week after tax and NI.
I tell ya, we are all buggered!
You will have noticed that the petition is now closed, on the basis I suppose, "Close that petition damn quickly before any more of those unwashed peasants can sign up to it. How very dare they try to tell us - the elite - snouts in trough - we know best brigade what to do.
Judging by some of the travelling expenses publised recently, Dear Gordon will have to dream up even more ways of taxing us to pay the MP's road pricing costs. Or will they not have to pay it due to theirs being "essential travel?"
How about a renewable energy obligation charge, or a climate change levy?
Nah, the oily prats do not need any suggestions from us.
Graham
Judging by some of the travelling expenses publised recently, Dear Gordon will have to dream up even more ways of taxing us to pay the MP's road pricing costs. Or will they not have to pay it due to theirs being "essential travel?"
How about a renewable energy obligation charge, or a climate change levy?
Nah, the oily prats do not need any suggestions from us.
Graham
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.