´óÏó´«Ã½

Classic news management from Labour. We, the commuters and taxpayers, are being softened up for a policy which would be too contraversial if proposed out of the blue.

Glad to see you're back on politics though Nick.

Surely this report is necessary. Prescott sorted out this mess 9 years ago, didn't he?

It was ever thus, and ever will be. It is hardly a British phenomenum, the Iraq Study Group in the USA springs to mind as a current example.

I am more interested as to whether people will buy it this time?

After all history is replete with examples of taxes however described, that stir people to action, and I get a funny feeling that we are all taxed out now.

I think this may be the tax too far - I can hear a faint noise that sounds like poll tax riots, and it seems to be getting louder...

"Buried inside are often findings ministers ignore"

Unlike ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists? The Cullen Report into the Dunblane tragedy recommended against a ban on handguns. To my knowledge, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has never once informed the public of this fact.

The main problem I have with this, and one that it seems is not addressed in great detail by the report (or at least the reports of the report as I haven't had chance to read it yet) is the detail of how such a charge could be implemented. A proper road pricing scheme, with differential pricing by road type and time of day, could only be implemented by having a GPS tracker installed in every single car in Britain. This could be mandated in new cars bought in the UK: but what about existing cars? What about cars bought abroad and imported?

Assuming you've got a tracker, how will the bill be calculated? There will have to be a central database containing all the tariff details, and all the billing details. So now we need not just a GPS tracker that can record route details but that communicates the details back to the central database. Will this just be a daily "user made journeys worth £10.60 today" message (which might be easy to hack or override) or will the full details of every journey be stored on a central Big Brother database? We all know how well big IT projects go... (passport office, CSA, Criminal Records, Air traffic control etc and so on); not to mention the serious privacy issues of having the Government (or more likely an outsourced contractor like Capita) store details of all our movements.

What about the unintended consequences? E.g. traffic will be driven off busy motorways and onto cheaper back roads, which are more dangerous - and small villages will suddenly find themselves swamped with cars.

Details, details. But it's on details that such things must stand or fall.

I always find it strange that an independent report comes up with the answer that the people who requested the report have been pushing for some time. Even stranger that the report writer is of the opinion that his former industry needs assistance and should be improved.

Governments have been saying they are going to have an integrated travel plan for years, all we end up with is a dis-integrated plan. Most roads around here are congested between 0800-0900 and 1630-1730. Funnily enough these correspond to the times that people go to and from work, and take the children to school. Schools shut earlier than people leave work so there is congestion but not quite so much. So what is the plan to charge the highest charge? When the roads are most congested which is when people go to work to earn the money to pay the charge. They may remove car tax and fuel duty at the start, but the fuel duty will return as a 'green' tax. Another excuse to introduce another tax in the belief that everyone is too stupid to realise that it has nothing to do with environment and just to raise cash.

Has there ever been a government so hellbent on impoverishing the people it purports to represent? Labour are so dead and buried when it comes to the next election that Cameron could not name any policies until the eve of the election and still win.

As a New Labour supporter it brings me no joy to suggest that this government and I suspect the opposition parties see new taxes as the panacea to all infrastructure problems. The only difference will be what the tax revenues raised will be spent on.

In my view we need not only a major & sustained investment in the railways (as per the approach in France), but also in roads. This won't be popular but I guarantee the British motorist will cut back on any other expenditure he/she can before abandoning their car. Also, any 'new' car will need a decent infrastructure.

Taxes raised must be 'ringfenced' for infrastructure. Plus a curbing of any future 'international ventures' involving gunboat diplomacy.

I understand the politics of the situation and the reasons reports such as this come from independents. However, how can this road pricing malarchy be justified without a reasonable alternative to road transport(i.e. effective public transport).

For example in my area, Surrey, to get down to Brighton by car takes 45 mins. To get there by bus takes hours, and to get there by train I have to go up towards London and then back down on the Brighton line, as all trains are directed towards London. How inefficient is it to travel by public transport??

The independent reports can't be sold to the public, no matter whom they are from, if it isn't reasonable for 'average joe' to follow them through. If they don't seem to have been thought through properly, have we got any option but to listen to what has been said and look forward to a further cost increases when these reports are made government policy?

I wonder.
If teh civil servants had been left to fulfil their function, prior to becoming Labours lackeys, would we ever have had need for an "independent" review?

And why are these "independent" reviewers all "ex" somebodys, and not private businessmen similar to Alan Sugar or Richard Branson, who tend to put their money where their ideas are.
We may not even agree with these 2 people, but we believe they have identified the real benefits and costs involved.

The Treasury, aka Gordon Brown, commissions Eddington to produce a report on transport. Conclusion: another road tax. The Treasury commissions Stern to produce a report on climate change. Conclusion: new green taxes. We are not fooled. The time can't be far off when we start throwing tea chests into the water.

Living in Australia, the author may have experienced decent public transport - perhaps he should recommend that instead.

For example, the city of Perth has three central bus routes, which a) run every few minutes and b) are completely free. The other rail routes are fairly frequent, inexpensive, and clean.

This country seems to have an obsession with making money out of public transport. Sensible countries realise that you put money in and transport comes out (to the benefit of all).

Re the last line - be fair - after all he is an Australian! On the other hand given his previous post (and any likely future job), how much weight should we attach to recommendations about expansion of air travel?

If they charge us by the mile, does that mean the end of the road fund licence and petrol tax? Yea, right!

I have a funny feeling that Gordon Brown will drop this idea when he becomes prime minister.

The worse he looks now, the better he will look later. His personal rating is currently very low, but if he makes announcemnts that road user charging and ID cards have been dropped then he might just be able to ride the wave of relief come the next general election.

The theory goes something like this:
'Gordon might have been a bad chancellor, but look what a good prime minister he is, he has listend to the public and scrapped the idea of road charging and abandoned ID cards. He is such a nice guy, we've got to give him a chance at the next election'

If we look at the facts Road user charging is simply not feasable. There is little doubt that there are many people like me that will simply put a hammer through the black box without even a second thought no matter how much the fine is. I fail to believe that the government does not realise this.

Until recently I used to travel to work from a small village near Cheltenham to an even smaller village near Arlingham on the large bend on the River Severn.

Far too far for biking and public transport? You must be joking!! A car was the only way to get there!

This is nothing more than another way of taxing people for having the cheek to go to work! How I long for small Government and the ability to get on with my life without undue interference.

Yet another piece of Nu-Labour spin.

Road pricing will never happen though for two reasons.

Firstly it will require expensive and complicated IT and we all know how well Government manages IT projects !

Secondly, people just won't stand for it and certainly won't vote for it. It will, after all have to be included in the party manefesto before a general election. Turkey's don't generally vote for Christmas.

The suggestion that road fund tax and petrol duty would be reduced to compensate is just a smoke screen.

Nice try Gordon, now back to the drawing board. How about spending some real money on improving public transport over a sustained long period. You could even call it your legacy to the British people. It would be a more effective and more tangible use of tax-payers money than the billions your're planning on spending to replace Trident.

Being highly synical - could the fact that the report author is Australian make it a good opportunity for some more Pom bashing. If he recommends extra taxes and the skilled labour get really hacked off maybe more will emigrate to Aus and help to fill the labour shortages they have.

Also how long after introduction until someone finds a way to 'fool' the system, foil over the arial maybe a good start.

The new EU GPS satellites where especially built for this purpose as this will be an EU tax whether all will go to the EU or a proportionate amount to begin with is unclear but its obvious EU Satellites are not free..

So called independent looking reports like the joseph roundtree foundation or any number of government propaganda machines are very deceptive..

This is just so clearly planned and part of financing the EU..

YOU KNOW in fact most KNOW the government are lyers cheats fraudsters. This is really, really insane that they actually get away with this..

All these reports could save forests of trees if they were just published as a single sheet of A4 with the 'recommendation' - "MORE TAXES NOW!"

I don't recall any report has come to a different conclusion; he who pays the piper call the tune...

If a tax is the answer to a question of allocative and economic efficiency, you know someone somewhere has missed the point.

Taxes don't inevitably change behaviour; they often get internalised and the result is a change in the household budget - as in much less money to live on.

So, Gordon, if when these new additional taxes, failures to regulate rail fares and the rest come home to roost and inflation rises, what will you do? Why, raise interest rates of course!

The sheer dumb idiocy of it is breathtaking. You can't tax people into submission and expect them to vote for you, Gordon. Try imagination instead of the levers of tax. It might just save your bacon.

Pete Lawrence is a brave man 'As a New Labour supporter . . .'
Politicians, especially socialist politicians, are only it in for the power and the money they can grab to feather their own nests. All of this done in the name of helping the 'disadvantaged'. Of course it's all about maintaining people's dependency on the State, allowing the current bunch of failed mediocrities to plead in the face of all the evidence 'we've achieved a lot but there's still much to do'.
The tax-payer / tax-taker equation is way out of balance in this country. 40% of the population receiving some form of State aid is a damning indictment of 40 years of failed socialist policies rather than something to be proud of.
But how to break this vicious cycle?
Pete, do the rest of us a favour and don't vote next time, there's a good chap.

The other issue that they are trying to keep quite is the fact that yes GPS systems will be used to record the movements of your car (very big Brother) but it will also be used to catch people speeding and fine them, it will also be used by the police after and accident to help with there investigations. There is a petition against this tax on the govt web site, have tried to post the link but got it barred by this web site (sorry)

If they improve public transport then more people might use it.

If more people use it, there would be less congestion.

If there were less congestion there would be no justification for road user charging.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it IS a duck...... THIS IS ANOTHER TAX

There is no surprise that a former aviation boss is advocating airport expansion (and aviation will account for half of transport's CO2 emissions by 2050) at the expense of the motorist and commuters going to work.

Taking the trouble to read this report cutting through the la-la land fantasy of congratulating government inepitutde on road transport policy for NINE years, it begins to contradict itself.

For example, the largest number of journeys is education (the school run) in the morning, work commuting comes third. Also, the number of commuting journeys over 30 miles (likely to use motorways) are 8% of the total.

So the conclusion, hey presto is road pricing! At £1.30 a mile at peak times.

What!!!???

What's wrong with a network of school buses to ease the congestion during morning rush hour? Anyone knows this, you only have to drive to work during the school holidays to see the difference.

There is a simple system called fuel duty, it costs more to drive more and promotes efficient car ownership.

Road pricing will not do that, it is a truly regressive tax. Road pricing will double the cost of getting to work and cost billions to implement. It is a tax on jobs, hardly something you would want to encourage.

If this is the best the government can do and this is the best expert they can find, then God help us all. My advice is try a motorist that one that lives in the UK.

At the moment the public does trust independent reports more. But they will soon realise that politicians (like brown) are simply hiding behind them, having rigged the conclusions before they have been in commissioned.

What a suprise we need road pricing we already have it in road tax and tax on petrol. I think the labour goverment just wants to makes us all pay over the odds it is only because they cant tax the air we breath. Nine years and all they can come up with is more tax. I think its time for a revolt instead of us taking all this rubbish from a corrupt goverment.

How much does it cost the taxpayer to fund these reports?

Why not just use fuel duty, which is effectively a tax per mile and not bother with all the complexity? This government has burnt about £12 Billion of our money on IT projects which have never delivered anything, and this sounds just like another one. A technically complex and bureaucratic system to hide the fact that in 10 years they have achieved little to actually improve transport capacity and provide credible alternatives to the car.

Their only answer is price us off the trains with yet again above inflation price rises being announced this week and now price us off the roads too.

Projects to really improve capacity, eg Cross Rail have remained Civil Service Meeting Fodder for a decade which even if it were implemented would fail to address critical issues like no meaningful public transport link to Heathrow for the 7 million of us who live to the west of "the airport they love to expand". Just how are any of us with a 25kg suitcase supposed to get there for a plane before Midday except by car? Put in on a bike and pedal down the M4?

This is the most appallingly profligate and inefficient government we have ever had and this proposal might just be the one to bring the whole cost vs delivery debate to a Poll Tax like crescendo.

Nick,

Perhaps a political commentary should discuss the content of a report aswell as the communication around it.

Judging by the beating the idea of road charging has been receiving on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Have Your Say, I would say that even this ploy by the government is failing.

In a classic piece of Sir Humphrey advice in "Yes (Prime) Minister": never commission any kind of report or inquiry unless you are certain it will say what you want it to say. Some things haven't changed in Whitehall over the years, and this is certainly one of them!

Yet one more reason for leaving this country. As Ben Elton predicts in his play: they'll tax the air you breath in the end.

Independent thought?what about the local factory worker,who independently bought a 24 seater bus,then independently worked out 24 of his working colleagues petrol cost per ann,then independently offered to take his working colleagues to and from their place of work for half their original transport costs.He now independently owns 25 buses and no longer works at the factory,i would say!that "independently" sometimes there can be gains.

I suspect the main attraction of using 'external consultants' for such reports is that it is easy for the politicians to dissociate themselves from their findings should public feedback prove negative. In this way they can absolve themselves of any blame and wash their hands of the matter if it gets to 'hot to handle' - classic Labour spin!

........ but their real value to government is that - sad to say - voters are more likely to trust the conclusions of Sir Nobby this or that than they are those of the minister, his political adviser and teams of unnamed civil servants.

Every time I despair of your sycophancy you produce something honest. Well done.

The only thing moving quickly in 'new' Labour's Britain is the juggernaut to abolish liberty and pauperise anyone who has been silly enough to work hard, rather than lie back, have some bastard kiddies, and get everything handed to them on the benefit plate.

I've just had this brilliant idea.
It doesn't need any flash IT or GPS satellites to make it work.
Pay by the mile? Just put a tax on petrol and those who have the largest gas guzzlers and do the most miles pay most.
What?....Oh!
Its already been tried you say...

I've worked in government and have commissioned more than my fair share of these reports. Generally you know in advance what the conclusions will be although on a few occasions you don't know what to do and are genuinely open. Of course the public never knows one from the other.

But whatever you propose, it will likely involve the public paying more or being regulated more or, usually, both.

I have to say I think the EU is slightly worse than us in this respect. Just about all the studies they commission show a need for more Europe in whatever area they want to interfere in. And they never do studies which show that less European interference is required. It's fairly well understood that consultants who produce unacceptable recommendations don't get paid at the end of the study, or only after protracted and tense negotiations, and anyway won't get hired again.

I'd actually like to add another comment, which is that this reliance on independent reports has contributed to the demoralisation and politicisation of our civil service. Civil servants are there to give policy advice, and should be independent anyway, and relying on outsiders to do the job civil servants are supposed to do is unfortunate if not downright sinister.

The biggest problem is that this Government has so undermined public confidence in our institutions that no-one buys the idea that such reports have any integrity.

We all know the Prime Minister hand-picks someone Great and Good to do the work, and knows full well what the outcome is likely to be. The good news is that we're learning. Eventually we will not tolerate such duplicity. In the long run, THAT may well be Blair's legacy; historians will point to the dodgy dossier as the beginning of the end of the idea(l) that citizens could simply trust their elected representatives.

The bigger question is what constitutional arrangements should we put in place to prevent a mendacious Prime Minister exploiting a supine Party and Parliament to betray the trust of the People in the future?

After a carpal tunnel op I haven't driven for 5 weeks and I haven't missed it all. Charge away as much as you like I don't 'need' a car at all, and I'd like to see pedestrians and cyclists put first.

I heard it recently "on the ´óÏó´«Ã½" that in parts of the country up to 30% of the cars on the road are neither taxed or insured. I presume that the drivers of these vehicles will opt out of paying the road pricing as well.
How about getting the government to sort out what they presently do so badly before putting another layer of bureaucracy onto the taxpaying public.

Reading the comments brings home the fact that people, either voters or politicians, tend to think of any of these social issues as S.E.P (Somebody Else's Problem).

I gave up my car 20 years ago when I tired of the constant road congestion. I last flew 13 years ago. I treat rail travel as an "experience" by using the slower train or less obvious route. I walk everywhere within three miles and insist on "virtual" business meetings whenever possible. Like my father before me I have a selection of manual wheeled vehicles to transport heavier items.

Not everyone can change their lifestyle to fit this "radical" pattern. For me it was mostly a reversion to the mode of the first 21 years of my life - up to when I was the first person in our street to have a car in 1968.

Do I feel deprived? Not at all - I fill my days with creativity, interesting things and people.

The way a society functions is by the behaviour of the citizens as individuals. It is sustained when those choices are by the individual's free decision - in the words of J.S Mills "to do no harm to others". A government can be removed but no matter for whom you vote The Government always wins.

Like all totalitarians the current government believes in the strategy of "grab people by the hair - and their hearts and minds will follow".

Do you remember when John Prescott told us of his 10 year transport plan,
What happened to that ?

Do you remember,when John Prescott told us after the train crashes,that no expense would be spared to equip the railways with advanced safety features,what happened to that ?

They take the money from us and give us nothing.

Fraudsters,the lot of them !

People have such short memories.

Britain is different from most countries in Europe, so the issues and the solutions are different. London plays a much more dominant role within the UK than say Paris or Berlin do with France and Germany respectively. In France the TGV rail system is a sensible solution to the need for fast transportation links across the County - in the UK the real problems are, as the report has identified, in and around London. Investment is (at last) going into London transport and there is the congestion charge. Road pricing will take time to impliment - hopefully not too long!

They want to charge us off the road but provide not alternative. I live in South Wales and commute to rural Warwickshire on a Monday and drive back on Thursday. I have to pay to stay in a house there. There is no public transport alternative. A 1.5 hour car journey translates to a minimum 4-5 hours on public transport.

Move nearer? I can't afford the property prices. My £87k Welsh home eequals £275k there. So what happens to me? There are few local jobs paying my salary. If I take a cut I can't pay the mortgage.

Andrew (Comment 23): Whilst sometimes I too despair that all politicians are self-serving rats who tax to fund their own Machiavellian schemes, that is another argument for another day. This transport debate is too important for petty party politics and must be subject to a free vote, and long-term planning based on a consensus.

"The Treasury loves to commission "independent" reports - whose conclusions it knows it will agree with - by businessmen with knighthoods."

"Buried inside are often findings ministers ignore - for example, Sir Derek Wanless was robust on the need for NHS reform."

So, are they publicity exercises that the government know they'll agree with, or independent reports which they try to hush up? You can't have it both ways, Nick.

"And lo! A consensus is born. The era of pay as you drive can't be far away."

I don't know about that. Enforcing a national pay as you drive structure will do two things:

Firstly it will take from the people of this land what the majority consider a basic freedom or right. The right to own a car and drive when and where they want.

Secondly, it will create a two tier system, because the rich will not be affected, and the poor, excuse the pun, will be driven from the roads.

I think the fact that this system is being seriously considered is a symptom of the increasingly dictatorial nature of the current Labour Government. Give them an inch and they take 100 miles. They've made so many tax increases whilst in power that people just shrug, complain a little, then accept the next one. The people feel powerless to do anything, so bend over the barrel and take it. And this is why nonsense like the pay as you drive scheme is looking like it may seriously be implemented.

The HUGE problem with the independant report is that it completely fails to take into account where all these people pushed off the road will go, as there is NO provision for the development of public transport. And when it comes to public transport, what do we see? Prices rising at peak times to 'encourage' passengers to travel off-peak. The people running the railways need to get their mentality back into the real world and remember that those people using rail at peak times are not doing so as a luxurious treat, but as a neccessity. They have to get to work or school! Until flexi-time becomes accepted in every single sphere of employment, and every individual in this land can choose the hours they work, such nonsense philosphy must be thrown out of the window....and pay as you drive should not even be CONSIDERED until this country has an extensive, high quality, moderately priced, public transport system.

Thank God this Government doesn't have much longer left to run....

It never ceases to amaze me how the Labour Government comes up with all of these taxes. I seem to remember their pledges back in 1997 before they got elected that few taxes would rise. As far as I can see, every single tax within the UK has risen (with the exception of VAT), as well as an abundance of new stealth taxes. We are taxed for absolutely everything we do.

Its about time the UK public stood up and said we've had enough. With rising council taxes, all these stealth taxes, increasing mortgage bills and everything else, we're being taxed to death. The Government wants us to save more, but I fail to see how we're expected to do that. I for one just don't see on a basic level, how any family in the uk can vote Labour given that we're much worse off financially.

H.M.Government must be rubbing their hands with glee. Get the media and hence the electorate fired up about climate change.

A few beardie wierdies on board to support the issue.
Then say that tax is the way to save the planet.

Of course not one sou will be spent on behalf of the tree huggers.

I can't believe that the public are falling for this monumental con.

Brilliant idea. Tax the poor off the roads and leave them nice and empty for rich people like me!

You have to ask yourself - why did the EU spend billions on their own GPS Satellite system? EU wide road pricing? This has been coming for years, from our unelected masters in Brussells.

Until the government implements the obvious solution of providing tax free bio diesel in every petrol station i will not take anything they say seriously. As it is such a perfect and obvious solution anything else is just a way of taxing us more.

You change peoples habits but giving them tax breaks not tax punishments.

There is no bus service in the area in which I live. I am too advanced in years to chance my wellbeing on a bike. I have the option of car or taxis to go shopping, whilst I am still capable of self propulsion by car, I value my independence. Pay up or snuff it appears to be Brown's motto

I'm particularly looking forward to the independent report on MPs' pay. I see figures such as £100,000 bandied about, and have wondered why the proposed figure is so low.

I believe that I now have an answer: the independent body sets salaries by comparing MPs' salaries against those of a typical head-teacher or junior director.

Why not, instead, recognize that modern politics is really just a facet of the light entertainment industry, and pay our poor MPs properly? I envisage a sliding scale of pay depending on the entertainment provided. A sort of performance-related pay, if you will. At one extreme, we might have a tongue-tied individual who fluffs all his punchlines being paid the late Les Dawson's current salary, through to the most amazing individuals being paid as much as the notoriously deceptive Sacha Baron-Cohen.

I realise that there may be objections to this scheme, which I will now take time to address. Firstly, it might be objected that it is invidious to inject an element of performance-related pay into democracy. I would point such doubters at common, established, practice throughout British industry; and, if need be, commission a study by respected management consultants into the undoubted benefits of this scheme.

Next, people might take exception on principle to my suggestion, complaining that such comparisons would bring the House into disrepute. I would point out that Mr Baron-Cohen earns far more (mis-)representing the people of Kazakhstan, than my local MP ever will on my behalf! Indeed, one previous candidate for my vote (now a grand fromage at the Royal Society of Arts), has recently been complaining about the disconnect between political life and the general public; my scheme could be adapted so that public interactive voting could be used to determine the winners and losers. I envisage exhortations to "Press the red button now, if you wish this MP to receive a pay rise".

Of course, quite the best thing about this modest proposal is the effect it would undoubtedly have on the salaries of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s political editors: their salaries would quadruple overnight!

This is yet another 'report'commissioned by government, this time the Chancellor, and presumably based on a brief by the said politician, which means that Eddington has delivered the kind of report with the sort of conclusions followed by the type of recommendations, including another form of taxation, that the Chancellor would have wanted. It is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard and apparently does not make much reference to our quite pathetic and grossly over-priced public (sic) transport system; one that does not run buses as and when required by people especially in rural areas; a London Underground system that has not really improved for decades; and, a rail network that has so many different companies and so many pricing structures that you need a degree in economics, I would have said mathematics but pricing structures appear to be designed to confuse and economists are there to confuse figures, in order to begin to read let alone understand.

Before a government can sensibly consider any kind of road toll system it must first, improve the road and rail network to meet the demands of the travelling public; it must ensure that transport systems to and from major airport hubs are fast, reliable and efficent; and, it must find some way of allowing rail users to get from north to south and east to west without having to traverse London, the biggest bottleneck in the country.