5 years hard labour ?

[FROSTYBALLS]

Civil servants are those who work for HM's Civil Service (MOD, DWP, HMRC, Scottish Government, Welsh Government, etc) and the associated agencies (e.g. DVLA, DVSA, etc), 

Separate to Local Government employees who are employed by the various types of councils, combined authories, etc.

Totally different terms and conditions, etc, etc.

[Bper]

25 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Civil servants are those who work for HM's Civil Service (MOD, DWP, HMRC, Scottish Government, Welsh Government, etc) and the associated agencies (e.g. DVLA, DVSA, etc), 

Separate to Local Government employees who are employed by the various types of councils, combined authories, etc.

Totally different terms and conditions, etc, etc.

Yes you are correct council employees are not civil servants. Thanks for pointing that out.😃

[FROSTYBALLS]

... and Local Government employees aren't bound by the Official Secrets Act.

[Bper]

Rachel Reeves the chancellor has been urged to consider a radical driving tax on electric vehicles as a £9bn black hole looms from the loss of fuel duty.Pwc says electric vehicles should be charged on how far they drive due to the decline in petrol and diesel cars.

For example in Iceland, drivers with EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles must pay 5.4p for every mile they drive. Drivers use an app to report the odometer reading on their vehicles and are invoiced every month. ☹️

[Haliotis]

I totally disagree with charge pr mile.  Nobody knows when they will be required to drive significantly more miles than normal at any given time.  Examples: Visiting sick relatives where there is a distance to cover.  Unavoidable change of job requiring substantial daily travel.  Regular travel to assist or shop for elderly relative.  

Pay-by-mile is devisive and open to subsequent increases to support revenue.  We want our country to advance in freedom - not to go back to the dark ages.

[Cyker]

Look at it another way - We effectively already pay per mile via the fuel-tax and VAT, although it scales up and down depending on how efficient your car is whereas, like the post-2017 flat-rate car tax, PPM wouldn't take that into account and like the post-2017 VED would also effectively reward more wasteful cars and penalize efficient cars.

Personally, if they implement it in a way which isn't draconian and intrusive (i.e. *not* with cameras spying on us or requiring black boxes or GPS trackers installed in cars or some stupid smartphone app or anything in that vein), and also abolish VED, fuel tax and VAT on fuel and electricity on public chargers so everyone just pays one tax instead of 4-5, then I'd be happy to pay per mile.

 

 

 

[Haliotis]

The only way to make pay-per-mile justifiable would be to scrap VED rates and VAT on fuel.  Perhaps a flat fee of £10 per year would be fair to finance the necessary DVLA records of vehicle ownership.

The downside, as far as the government is concerned, is that the driving public would have control over revenue levels by deliberately limiting their annual mileage.  It is difficult to predict how much the public would effect this “control”, but other risings prompted by social media have shown amazing results.

[Bper]

36 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

The only way to make pay-per-mile justifiable would be to scrap VED rates and VAT on fuel.  Perhaps a flat fee of £10 per year would be fair to finance the necessary DVLA records of vehicle ownership.

The downside, as far as the government is concerned, is that the driving public would have control over revenue levels by deliberately limiting their annual mileage.  It is difficult to predict how much the public would effect this “control”, but other risings prompted by social media have shown amazing results.

Switching to a pay-per-mile system while scrapping VED and VAT on fuel and adding a £10 annual fee for DVLA records has a few ups and downs.

IMO the pros would be fairness,you pay based on how much you actually drive.so you drive less, and pay less, it could possibly lead to less traffic and pollution and the government recieving only basic revenue. The flat fee would also cover any record maintenance.

Cons, could be the possibly of revenue uncertainty,the government might get less money if people cut down on driving.The high setup costs,setting up the new system won’t be cheap.Also potential privacy concerns, tracking mileage might feel intrusive to many.People in the rural areas who drive more could end up paying more.

How much would motorists actually change their driving habits. Would there be different rates based on the vehicle type and emissions, or peak time travelling.The system would no doubt have to be implemented gradually so motorists could get used to this. A lot of issues to consider thats for sure.😃

[Flatcoat]

I suspect the response to pay per mile could make the current unrest and previous poll tax riots look like a vicars tea party in comparison. And that is before the nut zero blackouts heading for the south east in the next 3 years. 

[Bper]

41 minutes ago, Flatcoat said:

I suspect the response to pay per mile could make the current unrest and previous poll tax riots look like a vicars tea party in comparison. And that is before the nut zero blackouts heading for the south east in the next 3 years. 

Hi Adrian,You might be right that introducing a pay-per-mile scheme could spark significant unrest. Many drivers see it as an unfair financial burden, similar to the backlash during the poll tax riots. This reaction could come mainly because of the financial impact, especially for those who rely on their cars for work.Tracking miles as I mentioned earlier could also raise privacy concerns and fears of government surveillance.

Rural areas, with limited public transport, could be disproportionately affected. Plus, concerns about net zero policies and potential blackouts, especially in the southeast, could make things worse. It would be unwise to roll both out at once.The government needs to engage with the public, be honest, ensure transparency, and offer real alternatives to avoid escalating these issues.😃

[Benzowner]

How would you work a pay per mile on different size vehicles? May as well just charge different rate tax on EV's according to list price or weight.

[Parts-King]

Had a customer in today who has done 800 miles on their two year old Corolla, they would be quid's in 🤦‍♂️😂😂

[Haliotis]

43 minutes ago, Benzowner said:

How would you work a pay per mile on different size vehicles? May as well just charge different rate tax on EV's according to list price or weight.

Petrol and diesel carry a tax in addition to VAT.  Higher powered/heavier/poor emission cars usually use more fuel per mile, so this would equate to those drivers paying more, separately from the per-mile charge.

What is certain, is that any government has got to stop the cash-cow approach to driving, and realise that, regardless of fuel type, a car is an essential tool for drivers and their families to run their daily lives. 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Benzowner said:

How would you work a pay per mile on different size vehicles? May as well just charge different rate tax on EV's according to list price or weight.

Hi Geoff,A pay-per-mile system could work by varying rates based on the type of vehicle. For example, cars, vans, and trucks could have different charges, with larger vehicles paying more due to their impact on roads. Emission levels could also influence rates, with electric vehicles potentially paying less than petrol or diesel vehicles because they’re better for the environment.Charges could be adjusted depending on the vehicle’s weight and size, with heavier or larger vehicles facing higher fees. Another option is to set rates based on the vehicle’s list price, so more expensive models would pay more.😃

[Mjolinor]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

Petrol and diesel carry a tax in addition to VAT.  Higher powered/heavier/poor emission cars usually use more fuel per mile, so this would equate to those drivers paying more, separately from the per-mile charge.

What is certain, is that any government has got to stop the cash-cow approach to driving, and realise that, regardless of fuel type, a car is an essential tool for drivers and their families to run their daily lives. 

Had each successive government not tried their utmost to destroy local communities and promote big company take over of groceries and such then cars would not have become necessary for as many people. Even petrol stations have had the same treatment. Within 200 yards of my house there were 4 petrol stations in the 60s, now there are none and the nearest is about a mile away.

 

[Haliotis]

It all comes down to “perception”.  In the past, the public were clearly recognised as either highly regarded professionals in business or authority, or working class (the flat-cap society).  At one time, it would be severely frowned upon for a working man to wear a watch at work.  The professionals would drive around in cars, and the workers would travel on a bike, by tramcar, or walk.  Then we all began to get educated, and the workers became a little more educated than what the professionals thought good for them.  Unionism and two world wars turned the average working class men and women into “thinkers” - people who the professionals had to trust beyond the normal acceptance, and allow the “ordinary folk” to absorb learning and technology.

So this is here we are today - no matter what our beginnings in life, the information is there for us to learn and better ourselves, and “ordinary folk” are daily challenging what was once the natural order, and questioning the boundaries which constrict them.

For civilisation to prevail, the the masses must understand that their protestations must not descend into violence, and the professionals need to learn that the “ordinary folk” are entitled to a voice and should be listened to.

We cannot all be bosses, but those who cannot must still be respected as human beings with rights to speak out for themselves.

[Cyker]

I wonder, do you think a flat fee every year, or maybe tiers of blocks of miles (e.g. every 5000 miles is another tier) would be better than PPM?

e.g. if everyone with a car had to pay a flat £500-1000 a year (No idea for trucks and vans, but would likely need to be higher!) 'car tax' but that replaced VED, fuel tax and VAT on fuel, so you didn't pay anything else.

This would likely disadvantage people who don't drive much though (Unless it was a tiered system), but would probably be good for high-milers like me and Tony   

 

[Bper]

36 minutes ago, Cyker said:

I wonder, do you think a flat fee every year, or maybe tiers of blocks of miles (e.g. every 5000 miles is another tier) would be better than PPM?

e.g. if everyone with a car had to pay a flat £500-1000 a year (No idea for trucks and vans, but would likely need to be higher!) 'car tax' but that replaced VED, fuel tax and VAT on fuel, so you didn't pay anything else.

This would likely disadvantage people who don't drive much though (Unless it was a tiered system), but would probably be good for high-milers like me and Tony   

 

Switching to a flat fee or a tiered mileage system for vehicle taxation has its pros and cons. A flat fee of £500-£1000 a year would simplify payments and benefit high-mileage drivers but might seem unfair to low-mileage drivers and wouldn't encourage fuel efficiency.A tiered mileage system, where you pay based on how much you drive, would be fairer and promote better driving habits. However, it requires accurate mileage tracking and strong enforcement.Implementing a tiered system would need infrastructure changes and public acceptance, while adjustments for commercial vehicles would be necessary. A tiered system could better balance fairness and environmental goals, but a flat fee system is simpler.👍

[Bper]

3 hours ago, Haliotis said:

It all comes down to “perception”.  In the past, the public were clearly recognised as either highly regarded professionals in business or authority, or working class (the flat-cap society).  At one time, it would be severely frowned upon for a working man to wear a watch at work.  The professionals would drive around in cars, and the workers would travel on a bike, by tramcar, or walk.  Then we all began to get educated, and the workers became a little more educated than what the professionals thought good for them.  Unionism and two world wars turned the average working class men and women into “thinkers” - people who the professionals had to trust beyond the normal acceptance, and allow the “ordinary folk” to absorb learning and technology.

So this is here we are today - no matter what our beginnings in life, the information is there for us to learn and better ourselves, and “ordinary folk” are daily challenging what was once the natural order, and questioning the boundaries which constrict them.

For civilisation to prevail, the the masses must understand that their protestations must not descend into violence, and the professionals need to learn that the “ordinary folk” are entitled to a voice and should be listened to.

We cannot all be bosses, but those who cannot must still be respected as human beings with rights to speak out for themselves.

It’s fascinating how things have shifted over the years. Back in the day, there was a clear divide between professionals and working-class folks, with strict rules about who could do what. Workers had fewer opportunities and were often seen as less important. But as education and technology became more accessible, those boundaries started to change. Now, anyone can learn and question the old ways.For us to keep moving forward, it’s important to handle disagreements peacefully and make sure everyone, no matter their background, is heard and respected. We might not all be in charge, but everyone deserves to have their voice valued and treated with dignity.😃

[Bper]

5 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

Had each successive government not tried their utmost to destroy local communities and promote big company take over of groceries and such then cars would not have become necessary for as many people. Even petrol stations have had the same treatment. Within 200 yards of my house there were 4 petrol stations in the 60s, now there are none and the nearest is about a mile away.

 

You're right, it's frustrating how local communities have been affected by big companies taking over. The shift away from neighborhood shops and the reduction in petrol stations has definitely made cars more of a necessity for a lot of people. It’s clear that these changes have had a big impact on how we live and move around.😃

[Haliotis]

When I was young and had my first car, like most other ordinary folk who had one, it was mainly for weekend pleasure and holidays.    But as time went on, the motorcar ceased to be a luxury, and in today’s world it is a necessity for a family to function efficiently.

After a house, a car is the next most expensive commodity that the average person will purchase and, if it is new, it will quickly depreciate in value.  So the average car owner will buy it with the intention to keep it for a significant period of time.

With this in mind, the last thing a car owner wants, is for governments to play politics with the operating costs of running a motorcar.  The necessary regulations for owning a car - VED rates( really a road tax), Insurance and MoT - do not justify government messing with these for political use.  The car owner wants, and needs, stability in his/her projected costs of operating the vehicle.  The facts are - any government that fails to see this and ignores it is a government that is out of touch with the general public. Even worse, that being out of touch reaches far into other political gaffes for which the general public suffer and pay the price.

[Bper]

Many of those arrested in connection with the current riots have been convicted and jailed within a few days, as Keir Starmer stated earlier this week. Meanwhile, there is reportedly a backlog of at least 110,000 criminal cases still awaiting court proceedings. Although a shortage of court staff and police resources contributes to this backlog, special courts have been quickly arranged at the government's request to handle the riot cases. This demonstrates that when there is political will, resources can be mobilised swiftly. If this can be done for riot cases, why not for the backlog?If the government claims that these measures were necessary to stop the riots, does this imply that the other cases awaiting court are not as important?"

[Cyker]

I think in hindsight the biggest mistake they made was changing the car tax system in the first place - Originally it was 2 tiers based on engine size, then they switched it to being CO2-based, but as you say it should never have been changed to be used for political reasons. That's what set them down the path of declining revenue, as everyone switched to £0 rate cars, and they ended up changing it again to the current flat-fee system to head off the impending black hole. I sometimes wonder how much money was wasted in these two systems changes.

It's sad they didn't learn from their mistakes - encouraging EVs but without any plan to fill the fueltax+VAT blackhole that would result in, despite being warned about it repeatedly.

[Haliotis]

Ministers don’t make mistakes, Cyker.  They make decisions based upon the facts that have been supplied to them - they all seem to have advisers in the background - and then blame misinformation when things go wrong.  They then bring in new rules to suit the information they now know(?) to be correct, and the rest of us are expected to believe it.

Have you ever known a minister to stand up and say, “Sorry, but I have made a mistake.”?

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

I think in hindsight the biggest mistake they made was changing the car tax system in the first place - Originally it was 2 tiers based on engine size, then they switched it to being CO2-based, but as you say it should never have been changed to be used for political reasons. That's what set them down the path of declining revenue, as everyone switched to £0 rate cars, and they ended up changing it again to the current flat-fee system to head off the impending black hole. I sometimes wonder how much money was wasted in these two systems changes.

It's sad they didn't learn from their mistakes - encouraging EVs but without any plan to fill the fueltax+VAT blackhole that would result in, despite being warned about it repeatedly.

It feels like they didn’t really think things through with all these changes. The switch to CO2-based tax made sense on paper, but they didn't plan for what would happen when everyone started driving cars with £0 tax. Now we're seeing the same thing with EVs great for the environment, but there's no clear plan for the lost fuel tax revenue. It's like they’re stuck in a cycle of fixing one problem while creating another.☹️