Bad news for the low paid and carers

[The PIT]

Under the guise of helping the enviroment while the real reason is raising taxes the toll road cometh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6678915.stm

Bad news if your lowely payed and travel a distance too work. bad news if you're a carer and need to use a car as well.

Thank god I work locally but if my Mother gets sicker having tolls roads round Sheffield (If they came in would make life very hard)

[Bobby]

Bad news if you care about the government being able to track exactly how far you've travelled and where, too. Disturbing.

[M'Lady]

I don't approve. At all.

Edit... This comment is aimed at road tolls... not 'The Pit'. For once.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Lady Penelope

[The PIT]

When they've driven everybody off the road will you need a license to walk on the overcrowded pavement????

[noggin]

.....and so the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen......

Edited May 23, 2007 by noggin

[noggin]

....and what next, I wonder?

Will we be spied on in our bedrooms and bathrooms? Nothing would surprise me. There aren't many places left where we can be without some nosy, voyeuristic, gold-plated-pensioned, government busybody * poking his or her nose into our private lives.

Might apply for the job meself....sounds like good fun!

*No offfence intended to any NWers who are so-employed. Got to add the old proviso there....

Edited May 23, 2007 by noggin

[Gray-Wolf]

Too late to start fretting now!

the lowest paid (for the job they do) are the 'attendance allowance' carers and their job is 'in house' so the travelling/car isn't an issue.

I don't see anyone waving banners about the plight of the millions of husbands ,wifes, sons and daughters who give up their lives/careers/relationships for to care for a loved one (often 'quilted' into it by the appalling Govt. provisions).

To exist 1p above the Govt. designated poverty line, whilst struggling (emotionally, financially and physically) to keep up to the job at hand and you think they are impacted by road tolls???. And when their 'work' is over? no career to pick up, no mortgage half paid off, no foriegn hols, no thanks for a job well done and Govt. money saved on hospital/care home bills just a dead loved one.

Yes, CO2 is an issue but keep it real folks and try and see what is already happening if you want to emotively bleat on about something!!!!

[Devonian]

I'm not at all a fan of the surveillance society, but I do wonder how we can cope with ever increasing numbers of vehicles on a small island. If what's proposed isn't the answer what is?

One thing though is that govt knows a huge amount about each and every one of us, it has to. You simply can't have a civilized and large population society without some kind of (amongst other things) centralised system of law and order, education, tax, defence, transport, trade and science standards, and some kind of health provision. So, this proposal could be seen as an extension of that order that is needed.

[soggy wales]

Arn't disabled people exempt from tolls etc? I know I am. Hubby gave up work to look after me (I have terminal cancer) and recieves ICA of about £48.00 per week for a 24 hour day, 7 day week, 52 week year- generous or what????? and to be quite honest by the time I die he will be too old to stand a cats chance in hell of going back to work so his life is buggered too- Cynical me? no never LOL

[Gray-Wolf]

Arn't disabled people exempt from tolls etc? I know I am. Hubby gave up work to look after me (I have terminal cancer) and recieves ICA of about £48.00 per week for a 24 hour day, 7 day week, 52 week year- generous or what????? and to be quite honest by the time I die he will be too old to stand a cats chance in hell of going back to work so his life is buggered too- Cynical me? no never LOL

Some of us not only know the sacrifices you need make and the pittance the good folk of the U.K. deem you need to live on but have nothing but praise and admiration for both the stoicism and love shown in such times.

Ian.

[eddie]

This government seems determined to set up all the surveillence tools and laws that would be required for a dictator to keep absolute power with no chance of any resistance or protest should, god forbid, one manage to get into office.

Detention without trial for 'terrorists', email snooping, the power for The Council to come and snoop around your home and now plans to track every move you make when you leave your door? Our civil liberties are being gradually eroded away and somehow they always seem to use the arguments that it is 'for our own benefit and safety' and 'if you are law abiding you have nothing to fear'.

Well that just great but what happens when the colour of your skin, beliefs or religion suddenly become against the law and there is no way of hiding and no way of resisting without being discovered and locked away without trial?

You are probably all now thinking I'm one of those people that wears a tinfoil hat to stop the mind rays but you don't have to look far back into history to see that bad people do get elected (Germany anyone?). How many Jews would be left now if Hitler had all the surveillence measures that we have in this country?

I wish people would start to wake up and see that civil liberties are very hard to get back once they are taken away. This is one step too far.

Edited May 23, 2007 by eddie

[Michael Winston]

I couldn't agree more with everything said here, (well said, Gray Wolf, post no. 10) particularly with reference to the punishment tax on carers. I've had bitter experience of this and can vouch for Gray Wolf and Soggy Wales' predicament, forced on them by an uncaring Government that seems hell bent on squeezing the last drop out of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Take a look at this rather depressing article from the BBC today*. I wonder if a Cabinet minister might care to explain to this man the benefits of toll roads and how they will improve his lot?

However, there is no reason to believe that we have to be constrained by mysterious and unjust laws. These are simply decisions made within Government that are subject to our judgement and they must face the test of legitimacy. And if these decisons are unjust, then the people that make them can be replaced by other leaders who are more just, as has happened often in the past. We can make a difference. We don't have to take this. Remember, the State is not a moral agent; people are, and we can impose moral standards on powerful institutions through the vote. It is within our power, no matter how naive that might sound.

Optimistically yours,

Mike.

*Here's the address if the link doesn't work -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6681421.stm

[Michael Winston]

This government seems determined to set up all the surveillence tools and laws that would be required for a dictator to keep absolute power with no chance of any resistance or protest should, god forbid, one manage to get into office.

Detention without trial for 'terrorists', email snooping, the power for The Council to come and snoop around your home and now plans to track every move you make when you leave your door? Our civil liberties are being gradually eroded away and somehow they always seem to use the arguments that it is 'for our own benefit and safety' and 'if you are law abiding you have nothing to fear'.

Well that just great but what happens when the colour of your skin, beliefs or religion suddenly become against the law and there is no way of hiding and no way of resisting without being discovered and locked away without trial?

You are probably all now thinking I'm one of those people that wears a tinfoil hat to stop the mind rays but you don't have to look far back into history to see that bad people do get elected (Germany anyone?). How many Jews would be left now if Hitler had all the surveillence measures that we have in this country?

I wish people would start to wake up and see that civil liberties are very hard to get back once they are taken away. This is one step too far.

Well said, Eddie.

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose an American / U.K. system of government. If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion; like yourself, however, I'd prefer not to, no matter how difficult the discomfort of reality might be.

Kind regards,

Mike.

[Devonian]

This government seems determined to set up all the surveillence tools and laws that would be required for a dictator to keep absolute power with no chance of any resistance or protest should, god forbid, one manage to get into office.

Detention without trial for 'terrorists', email snooping, the power for The Council to come and snoop around your home and now plans to track every move you make when you leave your door? Our civil liberties are being gradually eroded away and somehow they always seem to use the arguments that it is 'for our own benefit and safety' and 'if you are law abiding you have nothing to fear'.

Well that just great but what happens when the colour of your skin, beliefs or religion suddenly become against the law and there is no way of hiding and no way of resisting without being discovered and locked away without trial?

You are probably all now thinking I'm one of those people that wears a tinfoil hat to stop the mind rays but you don't have to look far back into history to see that bad people do get elected (Germany anyone?). How many Jews would be left now if Hitler had all the surveillence measures that we have in this country?

I wish people would start to wake up and see that civil liberties are very hard to get back once they are taken away. This is one step too far.

I agree with this (I've been much exercised about that pernicious little bill to exempt MPs from FOI the so and so's are trying to sneak in so I should do) but...how do we deal with more and more cars and the congestion and pollution they produce?

Edited May 23, 2007 by Devonian

[Essan]

Hmmm, what to do to cut down on vehicle pollution?

a ) Force people to drive more by closing down all local facilities, and then charge them extortionate amounts for doing so?

b ) Encourage people to drive less by opening more local facilities and at the same time improving public transport?

One is evil and the act of a borderline psychopath. The other is exactly the opposite of which this Govt is doing ......

Edited May 23, 2007 by Essan

[Devonian]

Hmmm, what to do to cut down on vehicle pollution?

a ) Force people to drive more by closing down all local facilities, and then charge them extortionate amounts for doing so?

b ) Encourage people to drive less by opening more local facilities and at the same time improving public transport?

One is evil and the act of a borderline psychopath. The other is exactly the opposite of which this Govt is doing ......

That's tescoisational 'one stop' shopping for you Andy - and I see planning laws changes means it's about to be made easier. Govt, pocket, in.

[Dave Clarke]

I agree with this (I've been much exercised about that pernicious little bill to exempt MPs from FOI the so and so's are trying to sneak in so I should do) but...how do we deal with more and more cars and the congestion and pollution they produce?

Thats easy Peter, more research needs to go into alternative fuels, i.e ethanol based and hydrogen.

Theres always going to be congestion, people will always choose to use their own car instead of dirty/late/crime ridden/expensive public transport.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Dave Clarke

[Iceberg]

As long as they leave rural areas well alone and tax the people stupid enough to drive in inner cities I am quite happy.!

[Devonian]

Thats easy Peter, more research needs to go into alternative fuels, i.e ethanol based and hydrogen.

Ethanol is a non starter, Dave - the production of boifuels is probably more energy inefficient than fossil fuels alone given the energy cost in growing and producing the stuff. Bio fuel is great for US farmers though - which is a clue.

Theres always going to be congestion, people will always choose to use their own car instead of dirty/late/crime ridden/expensive public transport.

Well, to just put up with a problem however bad it get's is one solution (we tried that policy with sewage in the 1800's, until the stink was literally unbearable) - but, in the end, problems have to be tackled.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

By and large congestion isn't a problem in rural areas. If you use a dual carriageway or motorway you should pay more simple.

Also lorries don't pay nearly enough IMO.

Maybe if these measures are taken the local area's will come back into play and people won't keep travelling to these horrible mass shopping centres, to buy things they don't need.

[Dave Clarke]

As long as they leave rural areas well alone and tax the people stupid enough to drive in inner cities I am quite happy.!

So a district nurse or doctor that has no option than to drive in inner city areas is stupid then?

[Iceberg]

Yep.

If they are driving for work i.e a midwife visting house to houst the toll will be paid for them like they get there petrol paid.

If they are travelling to a hospital etc to work, then they can get public transport like the rest of us.

As for a docter he might have to reduce his holidays abroad by 1 each year, poor thing.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Iceberg

[Wynn D Woo]

By and large congestion isn't a problem in rural areas. If you use a dual carriageway or motorway you should pay more simple.

Also lorries don't pay nearly enough IMO.

Maybe if these measures are taken the local area's will come back into play and people won't keep travelling to these horrible mass shopping centres, to buy things they don't need.

The problem is the government has allowed old railway lines to be built over when they could have been re instated and used to transport goods around the country, removing hundreds of lorries which cause endless congestion. Even on motorways and duals when it takes 3 miles for one lorry to pass another ( never understood why the driver of the lorry being overtaken cant slow a little to let the passing truck get by and in faster, other than selfishness).

Also rather than setting up and expensive road charging system why not just increase fuel duty, large and ineffiecient cars will be discourage if it really is to do with the environment rather than gaining more control over the population. Some very worrying laws have been introduced lately which Hitler would be extremly happy with in Nazi Germany - how long before the Neo-peasants revolt?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I've been involved in discussions on this issue before, but here are my core views:

1. A common argument in favour of surveillance is "we're being watched over anyway e.g. by CCTV". However, there are different degrees of surveillance, and in reality, it's the progressive increasing of the extent of it that is the potential problem, rather than its mere existence.

2. The argument "if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" doesn't wash with me either. One key barrier to the introduction and expansion of unjust laws is that it leads to lack of public compliance; with surveillance, authorities can get around that problem.

3. I agree that we need to take action to reduce the amount of traffic on the roads, but remain unconvinced that pay-per-mile is the best solution. It may well encourage drivers to leave major routes and drive through suburbia instead; it will cost a lot to administrate, and it takes emphasis away from charging based on consumption. I know economists love it (an economist solution to what can be expressed as an economic problem) but economics is only one science; it doesn't take other factors into account. In any case, see cost of administration.

4. Yes, I do have alternative suggestions. On the 'carrots' front, we have school buses, the equivalent idea of 'work-buses' for workplaces, potential improvements to public transport, improvements in road layout facilities, more use of local facilities (so people don't have to travel a long way to work), and more use of work-from-home schemes. Park and ride schemes are also good. A cycle network of the sort often seen on the Continent etc. would also be good. The city of Strasbourg has an impressively balanced transport system; it can be done.

5. If the 'carrots' alone are insufficient to bring about enough change, and we thus need to bring 'sticks' in, I still see fuel duty rises, and possibly phasing out of the most pollutive cars/fuels, as the optimal solution. People are then punished for high consumption rates, and encouraged to consume less, either through driving less or driving more efficient cars; likewise for car manufacturers (as demand for pollutive cars would decline).

6. I'm not against local congestion charges in cities if the areas are near-gridlocked and revenue gained is used to introduce the kind of 'carrots' I mentioned above. Unfortunately, even when these schemes are implemented locally, they tend to be revenue-neutral at best.

[JRMcLeod]

Hey Everyone, been ages since i talked on here...the British weather again this winter and spring was a bit of a let down, here's hoping for a good summer!!!

Anyways, this is a good topic going on here....i'm agreeing with what a lot of your are saying simply because its highly contraversial!!! I understand the governments predicament with respect to funding for a better Public Transport System, where do they take or get the money from to do this without stealing it from other area's budgets, the only way being to charge those who drive but as so many of your are saying, there are people who have to drive because its their job, and allbeit they sometimes are lesser paid than others i.e. carers!!

There has to be a line somewhere, we'll have to get taxed somehow to fund for a better Public Transport System, only if the Government tax only those who are driving to get them onto the buses and trains surely they'll need to drop the price of the trains pretty sharply because it may very wellprove cheaper just to take your car...

I would like to see people being charged for using their cars for their work but i believe there should be a minimum threshold....say 40miles per week etc!!! I'm a carer and i drive all over Aberdeenshire, probably on a good week i'd do about 300-400 miles to and from work but i have an incentive to do this, i get paid 22p per mile tax free for my travels and can claim upto 41p from the tax office at the end of the year!!! So i would be guessing that i would still be by law entitled to my 41p for mileage per mile even when or if they start charging!!! So what i'm really sying i suppose is that surely they wouldnt charge more than 41p per mile so i would have that side of it covered with my already in place mileage allowance.

For all those carers who use their car for work purposes i.e. going to peoples homes or nursing homes you are entitled to your 41p allowance, go to your local tax office and ask for a form and your tax codewill be altered for the next year so you'll get taxed less until its all paid back to you but keep your mileage timesheets!!! That all being fine if the law isn't different for England(Not sure if it is?)

The problem is the government has allowed old railway lines to be built over when they could have been re instated and used to transport goods around the country, removing hundreds of lorries which cause endless congestion. Even on motorways and duals when it takes 3 miles for one lorry to pass another ( never understood why the driver of the lorry being overtaken cant slow a little to let the passing truck get by and in faster, other than selfishness).

Also rather than setting up and expensive road charging system why not just increase fuel duty, large and ineffiecient cars will be discourage if it really is to do with the environment rather than gaining more control over the population. Some very worrying laws have been introduced lately which Hitler would be extremly happy with in Nazi Germany - how long before the Neo-peasants revolt?

I totally agree here...my family live in Peterhead, just 30 miles North of Aberdeen and during rush hour it can take nearly 2 hours to get home when it would normally take about 25-30mins. Its not because of all the cars because they generally travel faster, its because is a standard road and its full of lorries from the Fishing, Oil and Power Stations!!! They used to have a railway which they got rid of 20 odd years ago and its now a cycle path, if they still had it they could shift most of those lorries off the road and a lot of the cars, they could easily install cargo trains like they do from Aberdeen South!!