please sign this petition

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/

i cant see how any shows will continue if this tax is brought in

I can't see normal life continuing for many folks if this goes through :( 

Signed!  Teri

The plan is to only allow the rich to travel. :( This country's going down the pan.

This will make it harder for parents to visit me 180 miles away :(  Alright for me I don't drive so take the train! Will stop the showing and there's no-way life would be able to carry on the way it currently is. :(

Signed....there's loads of signatures though and theres still a couple of months to go!

I have signed it. There is an impact on rescues as well as it will increase their costs cosnsiderably

Signed, its amazing how many names are going on each time you refresh.
I have Mark phillips OC name under mine ;) LOL
Lea :)

Grossly unfair tax and tracking all cars is too big brotherish for my liking.  Fed up with the government constantly increasing taxes on so called environmental or health grounds which is so hypocritical.  For example if everyone stopped smoking/driving, where would they be?  Also very unfair to hit motorists when the public transport infrastructure just isn't up to scratch.

we've signed it too but I can't see our names on the list

I saw you Maria, get the list up and then do an Edit Find. :)

PS  It will be further down the list than you think!

The new ones are at the bottom. I think my name is gone now. and I only signed this morning. but then there are over 12k signatures I think!!!
lea :)

No way.

This travel tax policy has been backed by every section of both the opposition as well as  elected government, and in fact the government was critised earlier this year for not taking a hard enough line in trying to change peoples habits with regards car use. I can't oppose a policy that directly impacts the people who are directly, adversly impacting the environment.

I doubt that dog shows will cease to be. It'll mean having to be more creative with how people get there though - scemes like van sharing could be organised that could reduce costs - it'd take more oganising, increased costs and perhaps added time onto journeys, but really are all those things so dreadful in the wider picture of enviromental damage? If people really are on the very breadline, and struggling to meet costs of attending/traveling dog shows as it is, if you can't afford to do every single one, why not do every other one? I can't afford to ski so I don't do it. It's a pragmatic and  black and white approach, I know, and I know it's going to offend people but it's really not my intention - I just feel that people are far too attached to the convenience of having the car, and I think it's that's the issue rather than the taxation policy of the current government.

The overall benefit of reducing peoples car emmissions is just a small piece to a massive puzzle to tackling this potentially catastrophic climate change, and sometimes we all have to make sacrifices to do our bit. I don't drive. I use public transport for long journeys, I buy organic local veg, recycle, cycle every day to work. I'm by no means an eco warrior, perhaps an idealist though.:rolleyes:

All well and good if the Government were doing their bit - which they are not. Its just yet another way to extract taxes. Perhaps if the additional money raised was spent on improving public transport, they may be seen to be serious.
My council has now introduced their "recycling" bins. We have to take glass and old clothes to the local collection point - by bus, perhaps? They are actively encouraging us to use our cars!

I agree that the public transport services aren't the best, and the right investment is needed - although planned spending by the the DfT is 12.8 billion for 2007-8.

However, which type of public transport are you talking about? Given that rail was privatised (as a result of the thatcher years) and consequently catastrophically managed by the private companies - this year the government made 5 billion available to rail companys - it's widely held view that the management of these companies are to blame for not investing the money correctly leading to the poor service. Why keep throwing money at rail companies, but if it's not wisely invested?

Secondly, local bus services are provisioned by local councils (tory, labour, liberal) with money are provided by central government. It's not necessarily labour transport policies that mean buses to remote area's are infequent. Bus service contracts are also contracted to profit making organisations - you can blame capitalism for keeping costs low to maximise profits to benefit the local stakeholders.

Your recycling sceme sounds a bit rubbish (if you'll excuse the pun;) ) we're provided with two wheelie bins - one for paper/plastic the other generall waste. We're also get a box for glass. Since recyling is in it's infancy - and many councils are only now adopting this waste management policy - why not write to your local MP and say that the policy is contractory in it's aims of reducing enviromental damage - you might get a decent response.

>Secondly, local bus services are provisioned by local councils (tory, labour, liberal) with money are provided by central government

Remember when they were all deregulated and put out to private management. The 'quiet' routes that were used by only a few people were dropped like hot potatoes with the result that the people on those routes had no option but to make private arrangements - that meant driving. These routes haven't been reinstated.

I loathe this government.

What REALLY annoys me is that the gas guzzlers they are trying to target are the very ones who are least likely to be put off by being charged more tax. If someone can afford a 40/50K petrol car then charging the £1K in tax or putting tolls on the road isn't going to stop them - they'll pay it, or charge it back to their company.

No, the taxes will hit those of us who have a normal low key diesel 4 x 4, live in the country, no access to public transport and have, god forbid...a HOBBY.

Lets see some of the thousands of planes grounded - or charge more to run them - they are the ones doing the most damage in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more, Carla. Anyone who runs a rural business (tree surgeons, foresters etc) needs a 4x4 because an ordinary car simply won't get them and their equipment where they need to go. It's not a luxury or a status symbol - it's vital for their job. These are people who might be earning £15k in a good year. A 4x4 that never goes offroad or through snow is simply a status symbol; but in the main these are owned/driven by people who don't have to worry about tax.

Putting tolls on the roads limits people to taking jobs either on public transport routes or near their homes - and if you're qualified in certain occupations but which don't pay highly and have inconvenient hours your training and experience counts for nothing, and you might as well stack shelves because you won't be able to afford to go to do your 'proper' job. Try getting a bus 70 miles across three counties to do a 12-hour shift. It's just not possible - they don't exist. Trains are hopeless for local journeys since Dr Beeching emasculated them so can be discounted.

Fuel taxes and road tolls are designed to keep the less well-off in their 'proper places'. We'll be back to the days of nobody ever going more than 10 miles from home in their lifetime, and the economy - and society as we know it - will fall apart.

Where can I emigrate to?

The problem is that people won't be forced out their cars by increased taxation. Its just another money making scheme by the govt. Look at the London congestion charge - they are making MILLIONS - yet the traffic seems just as bad and the tubes are still crowded, hot and sweaty.

Why is the only option to charge people??! Why not force the rail operators to run a more reliable service? Why not update stations? You can't park at Stafford Station (main line) if you are there after 7:30am. You have to park and Sainsbury and walk miles, or get a taxi across!! Its an hour and a half to London by train - £140 a peak. I don't want to travel off peak - I need to get home to my children - so I am forced to pay it because I have to travel at short notice mostly. It would cost me £30 in diesel to drive to an outlying tube station and get the tube in.

Trains are unreliable too. I've lost count of the times I have stood from London to Hull because the train is packed as another has been cancelled - stood for 2 hours when I can drive in comfort?!

I could travel into our local town on the bus - but it seems to emit more fumes than the cars that travel on the same road, and sometimes they cancel the buses and you are stood waiting for the next longer than the time it would take to drive back.

So, instead of taxing us MORE - lets see some viable alternatives to the rubbish we are presented with now please.

Last time we discussed this and people claimed their local public transport could not do this or that a quick look at Traveline revealed it was very often not as they imagined.

LOL. "No journeys found" to get me from my village into the local town for 9am in the morning.

Yep, public transport works for me! Not.

Do you need to get into your town by 9am?  If you did, on a regular basis and there was similar demand elsewhere in the village I think I would be approaching the local council, you might be surprised :)  On some routes in Cumbria they supply free minibuses for very rural area :)

Yes, if I am going into London. Sometimes I need to get into town for 7am. Its just not feasible - so why should I be punished because its impossible for the council to meet that particular demand? Thats why taxing folk who NEED their cars is unfair.

It's unfortunate for you then but I don't see any alternative.  People have been told for years that we have to look at more environmentally ways of travelling, or even not travelling ;) but as individuals they have made such little effort that the world has been hurtling on each saying it is not up to them.  As another poster pointed out people simply will not change unless they are forced to financially and the proliferation of 4x4 gas guzzlers by those that really have no need will, probably, lead to the penalisation of those, very few, that do.  Mind you I think even those that do need them will sometimes be able to afford a little smart car to run them down to the station when there is no bus ;)

I disagree. I suspect its the hige traffic jams, congestion and city centre traffic that is causing the real problems. Not the occasional Landy going into the town once or twice a month to catch the train. Why not try and target the city centres where there IS public transport available but people still sit in their cars?

Oh, and a Smart Car uses about double the amount of petrol as my 4 x 4 uses diesel :)

>Why not try and target the city centres where there IS public transport available but people still sit in their cars?

I'm not sure who they are.  I know when I lived in Bristol I did not run a car, nor did many of my friends that lived at all centrally.  I suspect they might be out of towner's not used to catching buses ;)

They're the ones who need to drive to get to a bus route, and find there's nowhere safe to leave their car till they get back. So they just carry on.

I know when I lived in London we had no need for a car, because of all the buses and tubes and taxis, and that's what the politicians see every day. But that's far from reality for the majority of the country.

I'm happy not to travel, as long as the people who tell me I shouldn't are prepared to subsidise my income, because without travelling I can't get to work and earn any money.

Of course lots of jobs can't be done at home but many can and I think that should be more exploited.

It's difficult to stack supermarket shelves, for example, from home! I can't be on the vet's reception desk without being there. There are very, very few jobs that can be truly be done from home.

But I'd love one!

Of course lots of jobs can't be done at home but many can and I think that should be more exploited.

Yes I agree on this one :)

Define need. In your words - you can get to your meeting in london but you have to wait 2 hours and it's cramped. You'd rather drive in comfort. You don't need to drive there because there's a train service. You'd RATHER drive there. This taxation has been introduced on the convenience aspect of driving.

Actually, I catch the train - I was explaining why not everyone else does though!

Nope, my husband wouldn't have been able to get to work by public transport, to arrive at 6am.

I think it's important to remember that the current government inherited public services which had been drastically underinvested by the torys for years and years, and consequently having to labour (if you'll excuse the pun)  the consequences of the various privatisation and transport policies from that time.

It's sad that people with a genuine need for 4x4's are penilised for the wider adoption of such vehicles as status symbols, but if that adoption is adversly impacting our enviroment, it's them I would be angry at, not the government for attempting to curb thier use.

And Air Tax is to be increased soon too and increased fuel costs also impact the avaition sector but I agree - more could be done in that area to limit the number of people flying.

I think its time Labour stopped blaming the tories for everything - they've (unfortunately) been in govt for years now and the NHS and Public Transport and Crime and Education is all pretty diabolical - no matter how much they tax us :)

>the current government inherited public services

They've had 10 years or so of using that excuse. Sorry, if they can't make real progress in 10 years they never will.

As for the number of people flying: you either have to have flights at £1000 each, or plant a tree for every passenger to help redress the balance.

Never forget that climate change is normal! The planet's had several Ice Ages, and we're supposedly still warming up from the last one. You only have to read history books and look at art to see how the climate's changed; the mediaeval Frost Fairs in London, for example, when the Thames froze - and they didn't stop because of people burning fossil fuels!

I'm not disputing the natural climate change cycle, but the proliferation of climate warming in direct correlation to our industrial activities is to be ignored or belittled at our childrens peril.
Scientific evidence is catagroical in our cause of climate change, and the natural climate change cycle is at the corner stone of all the climate change reports published.  We're speeding up this process, and it's blaming natural climate phenomina is classic case of head in the sand approach that's led to the dire state we're in.

Scientific evidence is catagroical

No it isn't categorical, though you could think so listening to the BBC, and much of it isn't evidence at all, just unproven and unproveable computer modelling.

OK, climate change predictions the next 50 years are based on computer modling. This methodolgy for predicting climate change has recently been proven to be inaccurate as well. So much so that what they predicted to happen over a far longer period of time is happening far sooner and with far more fericity than they origianlly predicted. For me the reports I've read are evidence enough.

The other, catagorical evidence for me is the accelleration of the melting of the polar caps (and the resulting detruction of human habitats that have, until recent modern history, remained the same for hundreds of years). Also indicating evidence is the current effects warming on wildlife which is, quite frankly a disgrace and something we should ALL be ashamed of - it's undeniable that we are contributed to climate change - and I'd rather do something about it now then get 25 years down the line when it's too late. The stakes are too high.

Me, I'm still waiting for that New Ice Age the climatologists tried to scare us about. :)

The pictures from around the world showing the impact of current climate change on centry old human habitats , dwindling wild life numbers, the increased ferocity and frequency of freak weather and impact of global warming on every single organism from the oceans to the land frightens me to death. That's not a government telling me anything. It's information I've chosen to read about from independent sources, commissioned by non-political sources and my opinions formed from reading many different view points.

We only have one world, so I'm confused by peoples lassiez faire attitude to it's future when there are clear idicators that we are damaging it.

independent sources

I think you will find that few if any sources on either side of the climate debate are truly independent.

But surely I'm able to, independently, form my own opinion if I ensure I read enough about it?

As long as you read things from all sides of the debate. Try the Viking sagas, describing the discovery of Greenland, Iceland and Vinland (land of vines - now called America). They mention the climate, lants and wildlife of the areas.

This what I mean about travel broadening the mind.  Several years ago I visited Costa Rica, long before Gordon Brown was looking around for tax possibilities and was lucky enough to see a resplendant quetzel.  The guide we were with told us how lucky we were, this animal is doomed.  The tripping point has already been passed for the cloud forests of Costa Rica which this bird is dependent on.  If we all stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow we could not stop them disappearing.  Perhaps in the future we may be able to reverse things and the cloud forests will return but these creatures and perhaps several more will be gone and can never be again.  Perhaps it is because of experiences like that that I get so upset where others seem to let it all pass by them.

When the Vikings settled in Greenland, they named it that because it was fertile farmland. Now it's cold and icy. They knew what they were talking about, because they also named Iceland ...

A far greater danger to wildlife is the loss of habitat due to deforestation, not climate change. Reverse that, and polution will be of far less importance. The more trees there are on the planet, the more carbon greenhouse gases will be absorbed.

But with the proliferation of co2 emmissions, is it really practicible to simply keep planting trees? Where does it stop?

There are any number of contributory factors in the impact we have on the environment - be it from Co2 emmisions, our manufacturing methods (and consequently what we do with the waste), and I completely agree a holistic approach should be employed to limiting the damage we do to the environment.

I'm logging off now, but I have to say I've had a great afternoon debating this - I can't beleive how times flown!

Have a great weekend all!

>Scientific evidence is catagroical in our cause of climate change

No there are very well-respected scientists who can 'prove' the exact opposite. It's all guesswork ond hypothesis - no solid proof at all.

..... and the vested interest groups, their tame scientists and the BCC who have adopted man made global warming now were the same people who were warning us about the catastrophies of a New Ice Age 30 years ago!