Less than 5k per year? How would it be monitored? easy to disconnect a speedo, or alter mileage. Simple, no exemptions, everybody then pays for their impact of the environment. Uneconomical cars pollute more, (on average) and therefore pay more. Maintain your car, increase economy and pay less. Change to a more economical car, etc. Simply pay for the privilege of driving, you could own a car without having to pay tax on that ownership, then contribute to your share of the impact on the environment if you choose to drive it.

The cars within the fringes of Greater London, will only fill with enough fuel to allow them to drive outside London to fill up, therefore wasting fuel, but the 'cheaper' fuel area will obviously be affected by the additional traffic this may cause, but its revenue should be covered.

This will lead to a 'natural' increase in fuel stations converting to electric supply, as more Londoners who drive within the Greater London area, switch to electric vehicles.

I would be more concerned how London will generate the additional revenue once the majority of vehicles have converted to electric (which I suspect will be shortly after the ban on new ICEs comes online). By then the air quality should have improved, however, those funds will be missed.

Yes the government is going to be facing a £5billion black hole in lost tax revenue before the end of the decade due to the transition to electric cars https://insideevs.com/news/561536/uk...st-government/ plus governments & local authorities across the country are wanting to reduce private car use like the latest from Transport Scotland. https://airqualitynews.com/2022/01/1...car-use-by-20/

There seems to be no joined up thinking in reducing pollution caused by private car use in London, let’s get more people onto public transport and to help us do let’s put the free travel pass age up by another 6 years to 66 !

The way to do it would be to provide free public transport for people in employment and to remove the privilege at the age of 60 to stop OAP's clogging up the transport system for their days out.

I really should be in politics and strategic policy making!

:D

... dont forget TV licences and heating allowances. These old folk have had it too good for long enough, they must be rolling in it, with their cheap now mortgages now paid off because of the lower priced housing!

..... just saying :p:

I agree. It's great to finally interact with another enlightened member with similar ideas.

I would also introduce a weighting system for votes such that between the age of 65 and 75 the weight of the individual vote diminishes to zero. Then there is the question of healthcare - it should be prioritised for the young.

OAP's should be sitting on top of hills pondering about the great life they've had and how bad it could have been, as opposed to continuing to use valuable resources and generally enjoy themselves.

Few more like us and we could change the world......:cool:

Votes? no voting at all in my society! Kim Kardy B will be Prime Minisdent and she will tell us what to wear and eat. Besides, you voted for the past 50/60 years, you got it wrong, you cannot be trusted.

Healthcare is first come first served, on foot! There is little healthcare left thanks to those in charge, now you see what I mean about not being trusted with the vote?

as far as valuable resources, you are now in your eighties now, you must surely have had your share by now. If you want more, you have to pay for it, after all you can afford it what with having your cheap house paid off. Again another failing of your voted leaders, giving the right to buy council/social housing without consideration for those in the future!

Then there is the personal decisions! That 1976 Ford Escort you bought in 1979, you cannot believe how much it is worth now, well you sold it for scrap in 1989. This proves you cannot be trusted with investments and the like ................ my goodness, you cannot switch off the doggy tongue filter when you call me when you are looking up daily mail website on your phone. That is so 2019!

Hang on and in case you are not joking, on another thread you want the rich to subsidise the poor. Here you want to give the "rich" those with a job and perhaps in the top 5% free public transport and the poor, those without a job? have to pay. You also want to keep the rich oap's at home so they dont go anywhere and spend their money and so the poor and may be rich alike lose their jobs?:D

macafee2

yes of course, the top 5, and those with a job, need to get to work, so they must be prioritised, cannot get more prioritised than get preferential free transport. The top 5 are so important, they get more preference. Perhaps a bus stop place closer to their homes, you cannot have them wasting time walking to a bus stop ...........

I think you missed the point about the rich OAPs. They should give up their homes. They bought them cheap enough, and are now currently not paying for them, its only fair they should give them up to the younger working generation. Especially those top 5 working near the city. Why should those important folk in the top 5 have to waste yet more of their time travelling into the city, when they could live in a house close to the city that has gone from 3 and 6 in 1969 to 5 million. I mean no one wants to spend that kind of money on a two up two down terrace.

Mine and MSS posts were meant to be cynical, ridiculously humourous (well mine were, I reckon, secretly he was genuinely hopeful he could use it as a sounding board for his manifesto to run for prime minister before abolishing the monarchy, reestablishing it just before installing himself as king. But he wont be laughing when he realises he has to heat that slightly bigger bloomin palace than he already has :p:)

Come now Alan, I could not possibly run for PM. I don't like partying, boozing and mixing with hordes of people during lockdowns. In fact, I don't like partying, boozing or people at any time. The need to indulge in fun indicates a loss of personal control over oneself.

The idea of King, now that is interesting.:cool: I don't think that Harry and Kate really suit the role anyway.

As for Ian - I do get the feeling that he has a bit of a soft spot for these wealthy OAP types, not realising that by definition they will no longer be rich OAPs post the revolution, just OAPs.

Ian - the fundamental point that you are failing to grasp is that there will not be the rich or poor differentiation post the revolution. All will be poor and happy - other than those in the correction - sorry education - facilities due to their counter revolutionary tendencies. These types will not need to worry about such things and more basic needs will be of essence.