Better to be taxed by 'stealth'?

On one side we have the 'exiled' Conservatives, who can see no good in anything that this Government does, and regard it appropriate to use any means -- fair or foul -- to bring about its downfall, while, on the other side, we have those who think that the Government is infallible, despite riding roughshod over the electorate, pretending to listen.

Both sides, of course, will assume that they are correct and, although I do not have the answers (unlike some readers), I have listened to both sides of the argument and can only arrive at the following conclusion -- perhaps it is better to be taxed by 'stealth'. At least, this way, we have control over which tax we pay, unlike paying income tax.

Then there is the environmental issue -- global warming, greenhouse gases. We are told that they need to be reduced to save our planet which, I believe, is at its warmest for almost two thousand years. (What was responsible for warming then?) The cost of fuel could be reduced to European levels, but raise income tax accordingly to European levels.

At the worst, I could rid myself of my car and use the antiquated public transport system. Who knows, it may get me to work on time one day. But, on the other hand, I look to these "fine upstanding citizens" (William Hague's words') who claim to represent the majority of the public when they blockade fuel depots and choke city centres with articulated trucks, when, in reality, they are all wealthy businessmen, whose only concern is for their own greedy selves, with egos matched only in size by the engines of their 'designer' vehicles.

I do not think that there is a short-term solution to this problem, but the long-term one, if you disagree with the prices, is available some time next year, found in all democratic countries, not foolproof, read USA -- the good old tried-and-tested General Election. Who knows, Hague might not be so vague.

Derek Hilton

Oldhams Terrace,

Astley Bridge,

Bolton.