Sparky Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The following response is from Mr T Blair himself. Imagine having to send 1.8 million emails to people to say that their concerns are now officially ignored! "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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 It was always a hostage to fortune putting up the petition option up on the web site as depending on the outcome you can always be attacked for either ignoring the majority or allowing mob rule. In fact the petition option was actually totally daft as we all know how they work and any petition against lower costs etc if publicised enough is always going to get a lot of support. Probably with many people voting several times or voting when it may not apply to them. This is a UK constitutional matter so why are some Manx residents voting on it. I actually am in principal in favour of the idea if it could be made to work at a sensible price. The principal that you should pay more the more you use the car I agree with. In effect it could be argued that this is already in place with the taxes and duty on petrol. That though a very blunt sword as it does not take account when and where you drive. The proposal I understand would be that rural journies and those when the roads are quiter would cost less. For all that I can not see it ever coming in, well not in the next 20 years as I think the cost would be horrendous but ultimately it would be political suicide The following response is from Mr T Blair himself. Imagine having to send 1.8 million emails to people to say that their concerns are now officially ignored! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 This is a UK constitutional matter so why are some Manx residents voting on it. because it will affect us when we get off the spco boat or pick up the hire car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Agreed but it is not "our"decision to make. It is one for the residents of he UK and if they want to go down that route we will have to lump it. Just as I would not want UK residents sticking their oar in in respect of IoM matters I do not believe we should do the other way around either. Sorry but this is a bug bear of mine we are a fine independent nation when we want to be but at other times .... I still disagree with selling UK lottery tickets over here and being able to participate. We are not part of the UK lets not blurr the distintion by cherry picking when we want to be. This is a UK constitutional matter so why are some Manx residents voting on it. because it will affect us when we get off the spco boat or pick up the hire car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikingRaider Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 because it will affect us when we get off the spco boat or pick up the hire car Good point about the hire car but it cannot possibly affect Island residents who use their own car just the same as it won't affect the millions of foreigners who come over to the UK on business or holidays as they will not have a black box and I see no way they will logistically be able to fit them to all vehicles at port of entry. It should also be noted that the enormous number of economic migrants running around the UK in foreign registered cars will also be unaffected (the same as they manage to avoid speed camera tickets as well) but I'd probably better not mention it as some idiot would accuse me of being racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Agreed but it is not "our"decision to make. It is one for the residents of he UK and if they want to go down that route we will have to lump it. Just as I would not want UK residents sticking their oar in in respect of IoM matters I do not believe we should do the other way around either. Sorry but this is a bug bear of mine we are a fine independent nation when we want to be but at other times .... I still disagree with selling UK lottery tickets over here and being able to participate. We are not part of the UK lets not blurr the distintion by cherry picking when we want to be. This is a UK constitutional matter so why are some Manx residents voting on it. because it will affect us when we get off the spco boat or pick up the hire car So even expats shouldn't vote in any election or have a valid opinion on any matter? Considering that practically half the population (if not a lot more) of the island are 'British citizens'? I think anyone affected by any decision should have the right to lobby for or against it. And we will be affected by this. Whilst I agree we should be independent, in legislative terms (birch, death sentence, passports etc. etc.) the evidence clearly shows that we are not wholly independent. A bit of a one way deal don't you think? That's why people here should be able to take part in this kind of communication/lobbying at present. There is no such thing as independence here (yet) - and the UK do stick their oar in - so you can't cherry pick either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 If they consider themselves to be expats then in my opinion, in simplistic terms, then no they should not vote. Well not unless they are full UK tax payers or intend to return to the UK. Opinions are fine, influence whether be it by vote etc then not. I have to admit I have a prejudiced and blinkered view in respect of expats as in my simple mind expats are people who have gone to live and settle abroad and have brought into that life. Having done that you still have a passing interest in what is happening in the coutry you have left put it is that a passing interest. People you have moved abroad but have not brought into the culture etc such as some of the retired British community on the Costa del Sol I do not see as expats rather as individuals who have tried to export a bit of the UK to where they live. Equally it is the same with regard to people who have come to the UK. Do not forget your roots but if you settle in the country you should try and become part of that country and not try and create a coner of that coutry as forever england etc On a very boring aside whilst I am aware that you can still register to vote in the UK after leaving it is something I would advise any expat to consider very carefully especially leaving for tax reasons. UK inheritance is based on your domicile and the situation of your assets. In simple terms provided you are over the threshold UK assets are always caught, foreign assets caught if you are UK domiciled. Domicile can be seen as being where you live, belong and settle for good. Strictly it starts on your father domicile if your parents were married but for the majority it will be where you are born. If born in the UK you can loose if you leave with the intention to live and settle abroad for good. If you intend to return to the UK at some point, even if only in 40 years time to retire then it will not be lost. I would argue retaining the ability to vote in the UK could be an argument that one day you might intend to retun. So even expats shouldn't vote in any election or have a valid opinion on any matter? Considering that practically half the population (if not a lot more) of the island are 'British citizens'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.