Probably fair as your point about the weight of them is a good one. There's quite a lot of mixed messaging and watering down of net zero policies going on in the background though, which is a bit worrying. Rumours of CP2030 being dropped.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Get rid of road tax and fuel duty and charge pence per mile for everyone, seems like the best bet.Looks like they are going to introduce some kind of pay per mile EV tax.
Seems reasonable to me. With the transition to EVs and more fuel efficient vehicles the revenues from fuel duty must be way down, and these new “greener” cars are enormous and weigh twice as much as traditional petrol cars did 20 years ago so they must be doing more damage to the roads.
Some people will piss and moan about this but to me it seems like a no brainier.
Johnny Mars Bar
Well-Known Member
There’s certainly an argument for it. Mileage is noted at MOT time anyway so they could charge then.Get rid of road tax and fuel duty and charge pence per mile for everyone, seems like the best bet.
VED seems very arbitrarily calculated to me. I drive a Defender and pay the top rage of tax, it’s over 700 quid a year. But if I bought a van variant, or a the exact same car registered in a different year, the rate would be lower.
Yes it’s an old Land Rover that spews out a lot of shite and pisses oil all over the road so I’m more than happy to pay a higher rate than most, it’s only fair. But it’s these opaque and convoluted changes to the way they work it out that annoys me.
Similarly I’ve previously had a little Fiesta that cost 5x more to take than my BMW that weighted twice as much and had an engine 2x the size.
Charging by the mile seems a very sensible approach to me.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Indeed. Also, if they reduced fuel duty and got rid of VAT on electricity it would be non inflationary.There’s certainly an argument for it. Mileage is noted at MOT time anyway so they could charge then.
VED seems very arbitrarily calculated to me. I drive a Defender and pay the top rage of tax, it’s over 700 quid a year. But if I bought a van variant, or a the exact same car registered in a different year, the rate would be lower.
Yes it’s an old Land Rover that spews out a lot of shite and pisses oil all over the road so I’m more than happy to pay a higher rate than most, it’s only fair. But it’s these opaque and convoluted changes to the way they work it out that annoys me.
Similarly I’ve previously had a little Fiesta that cost 5x more to take than my BMW that weighted twice as much and had an engine 2x the size.
Charging by the mile seems a very sensible approach to me.
All they then need to do is work out how to charge a premium on non MOT’d and foreign vehicles.
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 4,275
Problem is you'll end up with people winding their speedometer back to avoid paying. Most cars with the right kit are pretty easy to do. Im sure Bradford and Birmingham will see a big increase in MOTs being performed where the numbers entered dont match the actual values.There’s certainly an argument for it. Mileage is noted at MOT time anyway so they could charge then.
VED seems very arbitrarily calculated to me. I drive a Defender and pay the top rage of tax, it’s over 700 quid a year. But if I bought a van variant, or a the exact same car registered in a different year, the rate would be lower.
Yes it’s an old Land Rover that spews out a lot of shite and pisses oil all over the road so I’m more than happy to pay a higher rate than most, it’s only fair. But it’s these opaque and convoluted changes to the way they work it out that annoys me.
Similarly I’ve previously had a little Fiesta that cost 5x more to take than my BMW that weighted twice as much and had an engine 2x the size.
Charging by the mile seems a very sensible approach to me.
You could do it using ANPR systems on most motorways, but then you run the risk of pushing more vehicles onto smaller A roads to avoid paying. Thats why for conventional combustion engines its just easier to do it via fuel duty, you cant avoid puting fuel in your car. Yes there is red diesel which in this day and age should just be handled via HMRC as a tax rebate rather than having it cheaper at the pump.
If the concern is increased wear and tear on the roads you might be better charging based upon the curb weight of the car with some form of offset for fully electric vehicles. For one thing it might get rid of peoples obsession with oversized SUVs.
hampshireblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 3,063
I think we will get it, but the trouble is the electorate won't like it. We got boiled like frogs for 14 years and it's going to take some pain to get us out of the mess. Labour did say it would take more than one term to sort it out, and it will.This country has drifted into an absolute mess in the last 10 years.
The prison system is broken.
The immigration system is broken.
The economic system is broken.
This was all created by the inept conservative government but it’s time for Labour to stop passing the buck and blaming them now and to actually do something about it.
It needs strong action and I am not sure we are going to get it.
Johnny Mars Bar
Well-Known Member
I highly doubt that widespread clocking of cars will be a problem. It’s not the 80s, you can’t just get your drill out, it isn’t easy at all with modern integrated computer systems, and it’ll cost you more to pay some **** down a backstreet in Birmingham to do it, than it’ll cost just to pay the tax. Mileage is very deeply baked into the ECU.Problem is you'll end up with people winding their speedometer back to avoid paying. Most cars with the right kit are pretty easy to do. Im sure Bradford and Birmingham will see a big increase in MOTs being performed where the numbers entered dont match the actual values.
You could do it using ANPR systems on most motorways, but then you run the risk of pushing more vehicles onto smaller A roads to avoid paying. Thats why for conventional combustion engines its just easier to do it via fuel duty, you cant avoid puting fuel in your car. Yes there is red diesel which in this day and age should just be handled via HMRC as a tax rebate rather than having it cheaper at the pump.
If the concern is increased wear and tear on the roads you might be better charging based upon the curb weight of the car with some form of offset for fully electric vehicles. For one thing it might get rid of peoples obsession with oversized SUVs.
Plus would you risk a criminal conviction with a potential prison sentence to save a hundred quid on car tax? Maybe a couple of people would but it’ll be an insignificant minority.
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 4,275
Only costs you a few hundred quid for insurance but there are still estimated to be 1m uninsured drivers.I highly doubt that widespread clocking of cars will be a problem. It’s not the 80s, you can’t just get your drill out, it isn’t easy at all with modern integrated computer systems, and it’ll cost you more to pay some **** down a backstreet in Birmingham to do it, than it’ll cost just to pay the tax. Mileage is very deeply baked into the ECU.
Plus would you risk a criminal conviction with a potential prison sentence to save a hundred quid on car tax? Maybe a couple of people would but it’ll be an insignificant minority.
Its really difficult to change the mileage...
All available on AliExpress for £208.
Bazzmand Show
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 5,218
Looks like they are going to introduce some kind of pay per mile EV tax.
Seems reasonable to me. With the transition to EVs and more fuel efficient vehicles the revenues from fuel duty must be way down, and these new “greener” cars are enormous and weigh twice as much as traditional petrol cars did 20 years ago so they must be doing more damage to the roads.
Some people will piss and moan about this but to me it seems like a no brainier.
Why? Surely the net benefit is that you now have a driver who is not emitting CO2 on the roads?
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
Ah, but you don't have a driver adding revenue through fuel duty.Why? Surely the net benefit is that you now have a driver who is not emitting CO2 on the roads?
Ohrodneyrodney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,420
You honestly think they are sorting it out? If you feel like you’ve been boiled already, get ready for the air fryer.I think we will get it, but the trouble is the electorate won't like it. We got boiled like frogs for 14 years and it's going to take some pain to get us out of the mess. Labour did say it would take more than one term to sort it out, and it will.
It's addressed to the Tories / Reformers who attacked Lammy for doing it as if it had never happened before. You can't even say Lammy was deliberately misleading Parliament (qv Johnson) - frankly only an idiot would think Lammy's refusal to answer the question implied that he was saying it could never happen again.I'm not sure people are only now getting annoyed at politicians not answering questions and only mentioning it now Labour is in Vic.
That is certainly one of the more desperate attempts.
"Look over there at what they did and leave my lot alone"
That card gets pulled out a lot.
Last edited:
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 9,983
I’m a swing voter and it annoys the hell out of me. Some folk are happy to tolerate their “side” behaving poorly and it just encourages shit behaviourI'm not sure people are only now getting annoyed at politicians not answering questions and only mentioning it now Labour is in Vic.
That is certainly one of the more desperate attempts.
"Look over there at what they did and leave my lot alone"
That card gets pulled out a lot.
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 9,983
The simpler common sense answer to this scenario is that he should have just answered the question. He knew the night before about the Algerian chap. He wasn’t an asylum seeker so he could have answered the question. Meatshielding the behaviour of politicians on your side helps no oneIt's addressed to the Tories / Reformers who attacked Lammy for doing it as if it had never happened before. You can't even say Lammy was deliberately misleading Parliament (qv Johnson) - frankly only an idiot would think Lammy's refusal to answer the question implied that he was saying it could never happen again.
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 9,983
Roads need maintaining nonethelessWhy? Surely the net benefit is that you now have a driver who is not emitting CO2 on the roads?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Roads need maintaining nonetheless
Yes but its been decades since road tax was put to that problem alone - its swallowed up and put in general taxation and a proportion is doled out from Central Govt to the Highways Agency and local authorities. Apply 14 years of austerity and you get the roads and prisons your Govt thinks you deserve ( and prisons ) - its becoming clearer by the day why Sunak went to the polls early.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Did they really say it had never happened before Vic? You are just playing the same game as each other and spinning your side. This is just the never ending circle of shite. You have the intelligence to get off the ride, you dont win anything for staying on.It's addressed to the Tories / Reformers who attacked Lammy for doing it as if it had never happened before. You can't even say Lammy was deliberately misleading Parliament (qv Johnson) - frankly only an idiot would think Lammy's refusal to answer the question implied that he was saying it could never happen again.
It will come around again unfortunately when we have a govt not of your choice and they will just remind you of every Labour failing.
I mean how tragic is it that when 250 plus prisoners are being wrongly released we get yeah but the Tories released on average 50 a year and over 100 in their last year. That's tells me its getting worse. Can we just try and sort it please before someone ends up dead.
No one wins with this one.
Is this the level we are now at on here. Arguing which shit sandwich is bigger?
hampshireblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 3,063
I replied to a post saying it needs strong action. Your idea of "sorting it out" may be very different to mine or any body elses. The fact remains things need action on multiple fronts. What do you think the priorities should be? mine would be the gulf in wealth across the population, housing and utility prices (all of which I don't like but can cope with fortunately).You honestly think they are sorting it out? If you feel like you’ve been boiled already, get ready for the air fryer.
Last edited:
So he answers, "No of course I cannot offer such an assurance that it could never happen again but that's why we've initiated a review into why it happened, so that we can make the processes more robust. You had 14 years to do that, and didn't".The simpler common sense answer to this scenario is that he should have just answered the question. He knew the night before about the Algerian chap. He wasn’t an asylum seeker so he could have answered the question. Meatshielding the behaviour of politicians on your side helps no one
Cartlidge now either has to persist with a supplementary about an issue that he's pretending not to know about, or he asks about something else. He's wasting the chance to ask about a different topic.
Personally I think Lammy should have answered, but any outrage that he didn't is misplaced. Maybe some posters here are too young to remember when terrorists were escaping from prison ...