Air Passenger Duty - the truth

This Labour government and its cheerleaders in the BBC and the environmental movement have claimed that Air Passenger Duty (APT) was an environmental necessary to fight climate change. It seems that Alistair Darling, possibly the least impressive Chancellor of the Exchequer for a generation, has admitted that

"the higher air passenger duty being introduced tomorrow was needed to plug gaps in the national finances.

He made no attempt to justify the move - which will add £340 to the ticket for a family of four flying long haul - on environmental grounds, the official reason for the tax.

...

Addressing journalists in Newcastle, home of the failed bank Northern Rock, Mr Darling said: 'I am quite blunt about it, we need to raise money to pay for some of the things we have done.

'If unemployment goes up there is a cost obviously to the family, there is cost in increased benefits, Northern Rock has cost a lot of money.

What we are doing is putting a pound on to your average ticket, which about three quarters of people travel on.

'And you consider the cost of an air ticket, I don't think a pound is that unreasonable.

'In the North East, we have spent billions on a bank for very good reasons."

If it was just a pound then maybe I and others would not be so pissed off with this imposition of yet another Labour Stealth Tax. However the truth is that whilst ticket prices for short-haul economy flights to Europe rise from £10 to £11, on longer journeys the economy ticket levy rises by as much as £30 and of course by far more for Premium Economy, Business Class or First Class travel. Next November the Stealth Tax will rise even higher as the short-haul economy-class tax will rise to £12 per ticket. However for premium-class passengers on the longest flights the Stealth Tax will rise from the newly increased figure to as much as £170 per ticket.

Will air-travellers now be told the real reason for the rise in Air Passenger Duty, as admitted by Alistair Darling, or will they still be officially told that it is an environmental charge? If the latter, as I suspect, will stay the case then they are being lied to; would that make the charge invalid and could people refuse to pay it?