I don't suppose there's anyone in the country who hasn't heard about the Lib-Dem council in Richmond who are proposing to introduce swingeing increases in parking charges for residents who drive the most polluting cars. The owner of, say, a Renault Espace may have to pay £300 to park outside his house, while the sandal-wearing goody-goody who can afford a Toyota Prius can be insufferably smug about paying only £50. If you've decided you can risk doing without a crumple-zone and drive a Smart Diesel, you'll park for free - at least until you meet the first 4x4 coming the other way.
Naturally there's been a lot of comment about this plan. Most people seem to be against it. But the GOS has heard nobody point out that it's none of their f*ck*ng business!
Just why should Richmond Council take it on themselves to try and control their constituents in this way? They are entitled to make decisions about parking, I suppose, but parked cars don't pollute. Nor does an Espace at £300 take up more kerb-space than a Jaguar diesel at £90.
When the engines are running, the government has already penalised them by charging them more road tax. And what they pollute is the air, which is not and cannot be controlled by any local authority unless it's prepared to erect enormous barriers round its borders to stop the wind blowing. And if Richmond Council think they are entitled to control the air, does that mean they'll be installing batteries of ground-to-air missiles to take out the massively-polluting airliners that pass overhead every few seconds on that side of London?
In effect they are taking it upon themselves to make a moral judgement: if you live in Richmond and we don't agree with your choice of car, we're going to steal your money. Because we can. And because we think we know best.
Something else that no-one except the GOS has spotted is that this establishes a precedent of earth-shattering importance. If one group of people who control a particular commodity - in this case, parking spaces - can discriminate against those they don't like or don't approve of, so presumably can others. Therefore the GOS would like to propose a few other measures …
• Airlines and train operators should charge higher fares to people who have fat bums. They wear the seats out quicker, and besides, they shouldn't be so fat because it's bad for their health. They could install "bumometers" at airports and stations, with a hole you have to fit your bum in to see if it's small enough, like the new system for letters at the Post Office (if you can still find a Post Office, that is) …
• The operators of the Dartford Crossing and other toll bridges should charge double for pink cars, because pink's a really stupid colour for a car …
• Supermarkets should make an extra charge for every item in your trolley that contains fat, sugar, salt, potentially harmful additives or more than half a calorie …
• Schools should impose a small daily charge on parents of ignorant children (though it goes without saying that the charge will be waived if they're Muslims or belong to any other minority group) …
• Councils should increase the Council Tax on houses where anyone smokes, because it pollutes the atmosphere …
• Traffic- and Litter-wardens should be given the right to impose on-the-spot fines on anyone seen wearing a shell suit, a Guns'n'Roses t-shirt, a "pull-me" thong, a hoodie or a mullet (though it goes without saying etc. etc.) …
• Of course, if Richmond Council can increase their charges to drivers of gas-guzzling cars, so can lots of other businesses. Garages should double their hourly labour rate if you take a Mercedes in for an oil change (Mercedes main dealers already do). Tyre service centres should introduce a gross weight surcharge because heavy cars wear out their jacks quicker. Car valet firms should charge more because 4x4s get muddier (that's right, isn't it?). Those men who clean your windscreens at traffic lights whether you want them to or not, should … well, just carry on doing what they damn well like, really ...
• Local councils should charge residents more if they use their dustbins, and hospitals should refuse to treat fat people … oh no, sorry. That would be really unfair, wouldn't it?
I'm sure you can think of many other really useful examples yourselves. You can even send them to the Grumpy Guest Book if you like.
It rather makes you wonder just what we elect councillors for, doesn't it? There's a common but unthinking perception that they are there to serve the people who elected them. But of course they know better.
Camilla Cavendish wrote in The Times Online:
"The greatest objection to the wider use of environmental taxes is their regressive nature: they tend to hit the poor hardest. The fuel protests are still uppermost in ministerial minds, which is why cross-party support for the climate change Bill has been so vital. The other problem, less discussed, is that such taxes will have the least impact on the rich, who have the most impact on the planet. Richmond upon Thames council's decision, much publicised yesterday, to slam gas-guzzling cars with high parking fees provoked howls of predictable outrage from the AA. But what will an extra £200 a year mean to someone who can afford to buy a Jaguar X-Type or a BMW X5 in the first place? Not much.
"The Richmond councillors have become evangelical about SUVs since they discovered, through a British Gas survey of local authorities, that the people in their borough consume more energy and emit more carbon dioxide than anyone else in Britain. British Gas found that people living in the richest areas use three times more energy than the rest. It stands to reason: they drive more, they heat larger homes, they buy more stuff.
"To price the rich out of polluting activities would either mean prohibitive tax burdens for everyone else, or slanting the burden so much the other way that you would get a revolution by the chauffeur-driven classes."
The GOS says: I wonder if the Richmond councillors know that it's illegal under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act for a local authority to make a profit from the provision of residents' parking places? A levy to cover the administration cost is all that can be charged. And this has been upheld in court - see here.
P.S. - round our way, Suffolk County Council have just decided to save money by closing the only recycling depot that takes old tins of paint, so Suffolk residents are going to have throw their paint elsewhere. Luckily I know where the Council Leader lives …
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite