Call for climate charge on flights

September 20, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (27) | Previous | Next

PASSENGERS should be `fined' £10 if they choose to fly from Manchester to London, say Liberal Democrats.

The `climate change charge' on domestic flights aims to persuade travellers to go by train.

Transport spokeswoman, Susan Kramer, told the conference: "The £10 charge would be a direct signal to travellers to change behaviour and the proceeds, some £200m a year, would go to future transport.

"We know from examples across Europe that if journey times on any domestic route can be kept below two and a half hours, passengers will switch en masse from air to rail.

"That only requires trains travelling at 170mph to mop up most passengers, for example from London to Manchester."

She said Liberal Democrats would build up a fund for future transport, raising £12bn for key rail projects by charging lorries on motorways and domestic flights.

What do you think? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (27) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

The Catcher, In The Rye (20/09/2007 at 12:23)

do the lib dems ever say anything sensible?

Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 13:17)

I don't think a £10 levy would make many people choose to change their mode of transport. Air travel gets an unfair subsidy by receiving its fuel tax free. If the levy was set so that it was the equivalent of fuel duty on the amount of fuel used, it might have some impact.

The Catcher, In The Rye (20/09/2007 at 13:27)

Air travel should be subsidised. If it was charged at the real price, few people would use it and Britain would lose a huge amount of business and tourist revenue - all of which puts money into the exchequer.

Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 13:41)

Catcher, if a business can't survive without being subsidised with my tax, it isn't viable and should fail.

The tourist and business argument doesn't really add up to me. It might mean fewer people coming into the country to visit, but then it would also reduce the number of people leaving the country. It might make exports more expensive, but then it would do the same for imports, making British goods more competitive.

The Catcher, In The Rye (20/09/2007 at 14:05)

Were you utterly pro privatisation then? I claim to be a tory (perhaps a little more to the right than young David) but I now see that some services should be re-nationalised (trains, buses, power, water, gas).

Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 14:21)

I support a mixed economy, as I believe that some services are best operated on a public basis; for example, I think public transport being deregulated hasn't worked.

My point is that businesses in the private sector which are able to make a profit without subsidy shouldn't have a chunk of their profit taken in tax in order to support other businesses which can't.

It comes back to my core belief regarding tax; people and businesses should pay a market rent for using natural resources (land, oil, the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.), but should get to keep any profit they make from using them productively.

The Catcher, In The Rye (20/09/2007 at 14:29)

Solution: nationalise the aviation industry then supporting it with tax would be ok - would it?

Chris, Irlam (20/09/2007 at 14:29)

Catcher, I think most of the population is a little to the right of "Call me Dave" nowadays....even Gordon Brown!

Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 15:05)

Very interesting question Catcher.

On one hand, it would be preferable to the current situation. I don’t like the idea of the public and private sector being in competition, which, if rail were not nationalised, it would be, but if rail were to be nationalised as well, that would not be an issue.

On the other hand, if any business is allowed to use natural resources at below market value, it breeds inefficiency in their use. It also raises the issue with short haul flights that flights become more cost effective compared to using a car, which may in fact be more fuel efficient. In effect the car is also competition for the flight and is being disadvantaged.

My instinct is that, even with publicly owned businesses, the full cost of using natural resources should be passed on, especially when there is some level of competition in the private sector.

Joey, Ashton under Lyne, (20/09/2007 at 15:15)

lack Flag wrote: "My point is that businesses in the private sector which are able to make a profit without subsidy shouldn't have a chunk of their profit taken in tax in order to support other businesses which can't."

Is that a bit like having two children, one goes out to work to earn a living and one stays home and does nothing. At the end of the week the working one gives half his money to the stay at home one? Wouldn't work in my house!

Colin W, Abroad (20/09/2007 at 15:20)

Cathcer i think you are right. I am a card carrying Tory party member with a signed picture of Our Lady Margaret and me on my living room wall from 1989 (I kid you not). At the time privatisation was the correct thing to do, now it is time to take a step back and reconsider. There is absolutely zero chance of the LibDems ever being elected to government so I shouldnt worry... unless Brown decides to take it on board.

Black Sabbath (20/09/2007 at 15:29)

If I have to pay nearly a pound a litre for my fuel why do airlines get it so cheap? Make the buggers pay full cost like I have to!

Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 15:36)

Yes Joey, that's precisely my point. It isn't fair to finance public spending by taxing profit or income, as they are created by the person or people who earned them and are rightfully theirs. However it is fair to finance public spending by charging people to use natural resources (via a land value tax, fuel duty, etc.), as everybody has an equal claim over natural resources and so it is fair that anyone making exclusive use of them should pay a market price into the public purse.

Black Sabbath (20/09/2007 at 15:40)

Talking of land values, this from a Lib Dem MP very recently:

"I am afraid that some alternatives to Congestion Charging have not been investigated fully. I would like to see a return to site value ratings. This is basically a windfall tax on property values. Everyone knows about the regeneration benefits that Metrolink will bring to our town. You have the ridiculous situation in London though where £3.5 billion of public money is used to build the Thameslink. Then the developers see land prices rocket and make a fortune. Instead of always looking to clobber the motorist, why not look at clawing a significant portion of the cost of Metrolink through site value ratings? It is only by looking at sustainable solutions like site value ratings that we will see a transport system fit for the 21st century."

Makes sense to me!

The Catcher, In The Rye (20/09/2007 at 15:49)

Black Sabbath: that reads like something written by Black Flag. I think I will change my name top Black something .... Black Head, Black Spot, Black Beard ...

Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 16:16)

What the Lib Dem MP says makes sense to me, which raises the question of why they support a policy of replacing Council Tax with a Local Income Tax, which would do exactly the opposite of what he's suggesting.

Mark,Radcliffe. (20/09/2007 at 17:52)

I'd love to travel by train,so perhaps the Lib Dems might help catch that kid at Hyde with that gun...Fine me 100 quid I couldnt care less...but a picture like that makes me want to fly even more.

David,North M/C (20/09/2007 at 18:32)

The Liberal Democrats seem to have a lot to say lately on different issues,thank God they dont have any chance of winning a General Election.

Mike, Manchester (20/09/2007 at 20:19)

I've done the London shuttle many times but never will again after going to London yesterday by train. It was superb. OK the ticket was a bit dearer than the flight but when you take into account the taxi, the 1 hour check-in, the wait for luggage and the shuttle train into the city, I think it's a cheaper option and definitely quicker.

Treble99 (21/09/2007 at 02:57)

I regularly fly to London to catch flights far and wide. A better policy to reduce unnecessary flights would be to make the airlines offer the same fares and routes from Manchester that they do from London. Do you think anyone in their right mind chooses to fly in and out of any of the London airports by choice ?

Taliesin71, www.randomjottings.co.uk (21/09/2007 at 04:36)

"We know from examples across Europe that if journey times on any domestic route can be kept below two and a half hours, passengers will switch en masse from air to rail.

Exactly, but why fix our failing public transport system when you can tax those who have no other viable alternative

alvinlwh (21/09/2007 at 09:22)

When I discovered that my carbon production is below average, I booked myself a second long haul holiday for this year to help me achieve my carbon target.

alvinlwh (21/09/2007 at 09:27)

If people are fined/taxed/charged for using the roads, the money should be spent on road improvements. If people are fined/taxed/charged for flying, the money should then be used for airport improvement and expansion. Of course if they want to improve and extend the buses, trams and trains, they should fine/tax/charge the users not the non users!

Black Flag (21/09/2007 at 10:50)

Alvinhwh, roads are public property, therefore any revenue raised from their use can legitimately be used to finance general public expenditure.

What you're suggesting is effectively a privatised road system, which would cost far more to use than the current set-up.

The Catcher, In The Rye (21/09/2007 at 11:04)

alvinlwh: yes I've been struggling to use all my carbon allowance - my own fault, I bought a very clean renault.

Still, like you, I have resolved the problem by booking a three week trip to Bangkok, Sydney, New Zealand and Singapore. We fly from Heathrow but I've booked the shuttle from Manchester rather than the train. Problem solved - I'm doing my bit.

()

Report

News