Yesterday the new Finance bill went through with a comfortable vote on all counts, the government and Labour party clearly rallied together enough not to enable the Tories to claim a victory here. The main crux of the debates yesterday surrounded car taxation and partly fuel duty for those in "remote rural" areas.

Without sugar coating it, the debate was awful. It was engaging in a way that usually only a minor car accident can be, and definitely showed the worst of our elected representatives.

The strongest of the lot were the Tories, for they had a purpose and they knew what they wanted. They weathered criticisms against their party and stuck to what they wanted...a hold on cars that will belong in new tax bandings to get the same freedom from tax hikes that cars bought before 2001 have with regards to most of the existing taxation system.

Are the Tories right to ask for this? I personally believe they were, to tax people on a choice they made up to 7 years ago seems extremely unjust. However they really didn't show much more than this in the chamber, with most discussions coming from Labour, the Lib Dems or the SNP.

The real tragedies were from the Lib Dem's in Jeremy Browne, and Labour's Richard Burden, Nigel Griffifths and David Chaytor who were all afforded far too much time to speak given how stupid they ended up looking.

Jeremy Browne first, this man couldn't have been more all over the place if he was Humpty Dumpty and had fallen from the wall. He was first supporting the Tories, but then started talking about how car taxes are good because they make public transport more viable (an eternally evil way of making public transport more viable), but then had to agree somewhat with his own colleague in that some places simply don't have the public transport in the first place. He was pro-environment but then (as with the Lib Dem awful transport policy) abandoned the eco-angle when it suited the task for simply raising taxes.

It was good to see him sit down as I honestly believe he managed to agree and disagree simultaneously with everyone in the chamber.

Though for as much as Mr Browne was a bumbling fool, others in the chamber were grade A idiots. Richard Burden stood up for quite some time talking about how all car taxation is retrospective and therefore that this Finance Bill isn't retrospective. It took a few questions before he dug himself out of his confusion and admitted that all taxation is retrospective. It was confusing for all of about 5 minutes but it became really clear soon after that his stance was essentially that taxes rise on people all the time, so what does this one matter?

As with other comments, this kind of idea of people needing to just accept the tax hike was wrapped up in this notion that it was also an environmentally friendly measure that we should all be bowing down to accept. Most sensible man of the match, Adam Price, pointed out that it would take 100,000 miles for even the most fuel efficient cars to run before you started seeing net environmental benefits from the car. The reason? funnily enough building a car and transporting it around uses up a lot of energy too. This point, so masterfully put, was then consequently ignored for the entirety of the rest of the debate.

It was ignored by Nigel Griffiths who intervened to attack the Tories on their green credentials, saying that this amendment was an affront to their supposedly eco-friendly leader. Of course if he'd have cleaned the wax out of his ears he maybe would have decided to shelve his carefully pre-planned attack on the opposition given how Mr Price's statement left only Mr Griffiths looking a complete imbecile.

And finally David Chaytor. He was actually the most engaging of the people arguing nonsense, but had to resort to good old spin. Trying to make it sound like the effects of this change would be small he said that 10 million cars would be unaffected or better off! Oh, except 7.7 million will be charged more.

Except all is ok, because "most" of those cars will only be incurring small increases in tax. Don't we all feel better now, we're only getting taxed more by all of these different green taxes and other changes in "small increases" so we have nothing to worry about. £10 here, £15 there, £5 there and there...it's all just lots of small bloody increases.

Most of his argument came from one similarly heard throughout the event, with no party wishing to sound like they don't care about the environment, that undoubtedly oil is running out and therefore people have to deal with being taxed to stop them using it. Again, Adam Price, it's a shame no-one listened.

It seems that Labour are really starting to believe, especially when opposing the Tories on such issues, that saving the world is important. Good on them. It's a shame really that being Labour they can only define how much they're saving the world by targets. Since you seemingly can't measure car production (utter hogswash) the only measure of how well Britain is doing on carbon emissions is by car use.

So come on everyone, let's all go buy bright, new, shiny, fuel efficient cars! We'll burn up even more fuel and release even more carbon emissions in the short term but who knows, in about 10 years time we might start to break even on our carbon footprint...just in time to buy another bloody car.