[Stuart]

That’s assuming that you would still have some criteria rather than it being a flat levy, but honestly I doubt there would be a massive backlash against a flat levy if it replaced the existing TVL overnight. Yes, the minority who don’t pay the TVL now would moan - but they would, in the end, be ignored.

That's the most spurious justification I've ever heard:

"You don't use this, you don't want it, you don't meet the requirement to fund it, so I'll charge you anyway, despite it not being a service provided by the state, but I'll just ignore your objection."

The thing is, people increasingly choose options that don't require it. They don't benefit from it. It's like charging someone for a 'residential parking permit' for their street when they don't have a car. They can't.

You can't 'means test' relief on something that someone doesn't require in the first place.

The funding needs looking at, but these are not justifiable solutions. Any suggestion to do it this way would fail.