I wonder if the backlash to the Government's tax announcement on fuel has something to do with conviction.

I wonder if the backlash, as much as anything, is about people perhaps subliminally feeling that this is all a bit of a con.

Here's your problem, as has been quite rightly pointed out. Firstly, fuel tax is a new tax - and the Government trying to argue it isn't is a lie.

Have other governments adjusted the excise? Yes. But that doesn't make it a reason to do it yourself - especially when you explicitly bent over backwards during the election campaign arguing that there would be no new taxes.

You had a tax working group, and whatever they came up with and got adopted would be taken to the poll of 2020, so we could all vote on it.

That was fair and clear, and made political sense. It's like arguing income tax is already in place, and because you're taking the top rate to 39, that's just an adjustment not a new tax. No one would believe it or accept it.

Secondly, and here's the really important bit when it comes to credibility, this fuel tax is paying for buses and trains and trams. Now, the fact this Government is pro-public transport is not a surprise to anyone, and they're allowed to be.

But if you are, be honest with it, and be bold with it. In other words, don't slap drivers of cars with taxes and say it's for roads when it isn't. Don't dress it up as something it's not.

This isn't an argument about whether public transport is good, or whether public transport is an answer, or even if the money they have planned to spend on public transport is even going to achieve anything tangible. It's about not being straight up and down about your goals, ideas and ideals.

If you want to promote public transport, get the users of public transport to pay for it. Get the cyclists to pay for the bike lanes, the bus riders to pay for the bus lanes, and the train riders to pay for the tracks.

You can't argue for things like a congestion tax, as a user pays concept, but ignore that logic when it comes to public transport. If it's the answer, let the believers pay.

And that is the great fraud of all this. It isn't the answer, and they probably deep down know it. They hate cars and they hate people in cars. So the punishment is those in cars get penalised.

This is ideology at its worst, and when it's dressed up this way, it's not sold well. And when it's not sold well, you don't get takers, buyers and supporters - you get resentment and anger based on the sense you've been hoodwinked.

And that's where we are this morning: hoodwinked by ideologues. Rightly or wrongly we love cars, and we love roads, and we pay tax for roads and bridges. That's what a fuel tax is.

The danger is, if excise is suddenly for anything you want, why not regional air routes? Why not electric car subsidies? Why not any pet transport project you can dream up?

A tagged tax has to be a tagged tax, otherwise it's a rort.