[jambutty]

No doubt many Accringtonians will have heard on the news this morning about the latest crackpot idea that this excuse for a government has come up with.

My letter to my MP reads:
Dear Janet Anderson,
It has been reported on the radio today that the government is considering a change to the way that we motorists will be taxed in the future.

As I understand it the proposal is to charge each and every motorist x pence per mile depending on where the movement takes place and the time of the day.

Is there no end to the hair-brained schemes that this government comes up with? First it was the ID cards, which the majority of the country do not want and will cost billions to implement and now this charge per mile. I might add that it is our taxpayers’ billions that are being wasted and then to rub salt into the wound we will be charged for the blasted ID card.

I might also add that the billions wasted in this manner could and should be used on what the public wants. Health, education, police, pensions to mention just four.

If the government wants to spread the cost of motoring more fairly then new fangled gadgets to track each vehicle and measure its mileage are not the way forward. All it does is give the criminal fraternity something to do – produce gadgets to counter the scheme, as they will with fake ID cards.

A much simpler and definitely more cost effective way of spending OUR taxes is to scrap the Road Fund License and increase the duty on fuel by about 10p per litre.

Every single vehicle uses fuel because without it, a vehicle cannot move and the more mileage someone drives the more fuel will be needed and the more tax the driver will pay. There is no need to spend vast amounts of taxpayers’ money. Thieving joy riders need fuel to make the car move so these criminals will also be making a contribution.

This government could go even further and add an extra 30p to a litre of fuel, 10p to replace RFL and 20p as third party insurance. Tens of thousands of drivers drive around with neither RFL or insurance so these would be caught in the net and would pay their dues. If any vehicle owner wants fully comprehensive insurance they can buy the extra themselves. Anyone who buys fuel for their vehicle whether legally allowed to drive or not would be insured and that would mean that in the case of a claim the innocent victim would get restitution. If an illegal driver damages my car today I have to bear the cost together with my insurer. Me with the excess that I have to pay and my insurer with the actual cost of repair. That is grossly unfair!

This leaves the question of the MOT. Simple, instead of applying to the Post Office or DVLA for a RFL disk, the motorist would apply for an MOT disk and to receive it s/he would have to supply a current driving license, an MOT certificate and the vehicle registration form.

Police would be freed from the need to search for drivers without RFL or insurance and could spend more time bringing other criminals to book.

Drivers who are exempt from road tax like recipients of the higher rate of DLA would need that allowance to be increased to compensate for the extra fuel costs.

It seems to me that the originator of this crackpot idea hasn’t thought it through. Or maybe he has? Because in such a scheme it will be, as usual, we the working classes who will bear the brunt of the cost and the upper classes, captains of industry and commerce, the aristocracy and people in high public office who will benefit with their gas guzzling cars creating more pollution per person than the rest of us.

George Orwell’s 1984 had it spot on. His only error was the date.

I would remind this or any government that it is we, the working class who actually create the wealth by working hard and long for poor pay. It is our blood, sweat and tears that provides the money for the government to spend. We demand that it is spent wisely and not wasted on crackpot ideas.

Sadly I feel that my suggestions will fall on deaf ears as Tony Blair, in spite of his claim to the contrary, just doesn’t listen to the public. I would remind all MP’s that they are where they are because we voted them into office and they are there to carry out the party manifesto and listen to the public if they want to introduce something not in the manifesto.

The party voted into office as the government is there as servants of the public and not the other way around.



Yours faithfully.



Mr. J. Buckley.