Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBKing
Where in the LD manifesto does it say this? Presumably you've read it before coming out with such a damning assessment.
It actually says:
1) Cut car tax for more efficient cars (presumably putting it up on *less* efficient cars, reading between the lines).
2) Encourage congestion charging (which isn't a tax, as it's optional for most people - for people for whom it isn't optional I'd cut it, personally, as a hardship grant)
3) Replace fuel tax and car tax with usage-based charging (whether this is technologically feasible or not is another matter, but we're interested in what they *say* here).
It also says that 'For many people..cars are a necessity and cannot be replaced by public transport'.
IMHO the LD manifesto on transport is quite weak, unfortunately. Nothing on nationalising the rail industry, for instance, which anyone serious about public transport has to do* (the Greens have it in, of course). And I don't see anything wrong with making people pay for the congestion and pollution they cause. If you're stuck in a traffic jam it's because a lot of people like you have chosen to drive on a road without the capacity for you all to be there, so it's your responsibility.
*Because it would save the cost of the UK's bit of the Iraq War every year in subsidies, around £4.5bn
|
I assumed the MP representing them on Radio 2 thursday afternoon before last was quoting the parties official stance on motorists and public transport. He was certainly saying that the Liberal party wanted usage chrges on roads, was not against further increases in fuel duty, and this was the way to force people onto public transport.
I dont have a name for the MP, and perhaps someone else here heard the conversation. I think it was the same idiot MP who was defending law and order, when a lawyer was telling a story about kids stealing a car in his street, stopping to talk to their mates, and the police taking two hours to turn up!
Join CF
You are here: 
