Kens proposed 4x4 ban

I'm afraid not - it is lib-dem policy to hand over control of national taxaton to the EU. If they hand over control of tax, they will not be in charge of the money needed to fund amongst other things, education.

formatting link

Many people in Britain are already members of private occupational pension schemes, or have taken out personal pension policies. This has partly been a response to tax incentives which the present government has largely withdrawn. This has placed Britain in a far better position than several other EU countries. There is little private pension provision in Germany and Italy, for instance, and so the pension 'overhang' in these countries is much greater than in the UK. It is widely acknowledged that these unfunded pension liabilities will become a serious burden, and this is a concern for Britain as a member of the EU because of the likelihood that we shall be obliged to assist through the EU budget. In simple terms this means the EU hoovering up our pension reserves to fund other less well prepared countries.

Harmonisation

Harmonisation is about getting the same levels of taxation across the EU. As one of the richest economies with the lowest tax levels we will have to use our money to fund the poorer countries whilst dropping to the average. An average across the EU is not possible at our level of wealth and taxation - we will have to drop for others to rise. This is EXACTLY what harmonisation means.

patronising

Under the 1996 British education act political indoctrination of any kind is illegal. Despite this EU Education Ministers' Resolution 88/C-177/02 provides 200 million euros per annum for propaganda much of which is used to support the following section of the above EU resolution:

"strengthen in young people a sense of European identity; prepare young people to take part in the economic and social aspects of the Community; make them aware of the advantages of the EU; improve knowledge of the Community."

No monies are provided from enforced taxation for those who do not wish to be encouraged to tow the EU line whilst at school or to demonstrate the disadvantages of the EU.

And now you advocate the curtailing of a free press if it does not agree with your aims - closer and closer to communism. . . . . .

I'm reading exactly what you are saying just as anyone else reading this thread is - 'I can make an educated decision but most anti-EU sentiment is knee-jerk or a tabloid opinion.' You are the one who keeps saying you know what is going on but most of the electorate can't be trusted to work it out.

Just re-read what you wrote - you can make a reasoned decision but you don't think most of the electorate can on EU matters. Cut the bullshit and prevarication - that is what you said and now you are back-peddling. You are right that I don't know you, thats why i base these posts entirely on what you have said, not assumptions that other people aren't bright enough to decide like you have.

Of course you can see it, you wrote it. Being more able to make a reasoned decision than us tabloid reading knee-jerk anti-EU types you are bound to be well ahead of me.

It's you who needs to re-read it. It's typical of your superior attitude to become abusive if anyone dares to disagree with you. If you can't enter into a political discussion without resorting to personal abuse and childish name-calling, you should avoid politics.

So you say the majority of the electorate don't understand european issues? You also say in an earlier post that you know enough about europe to make a reasoned decision when most others are lead by tabloids. What patronising, intellectualist nonsense. Has it never occured to you that everyone believes like you they can make a reasoned decision and that it's the others who can't?

The electorate worked perfectly at the last election - they reasoned that although the incumbants were deeply flawed, they were nonetheless still a better option than either the conservatives or lib-dems at the time. Though of course you will continue to assume they vote entirely on the basis of their tabloid headlines I am sure. . . . . . . .

Reply to
Exit
Loading thread data ...

On or around Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:55 +0100 (BST), snipped-for-privacy@4x4cymru.spamtrapped.co.uk (Niamh Holding) enlightened us thusly:

quite. I drive a disco, previously a 110. part of my work involves transporting 6 schoolchildren; OK, I could have a peoplecarrier and save a bit on fuel thereby. But the people carrier wouldn't tow my big trailer.

I do in fact have a car, which is something like 60% more economical on fuel than the disco, but I can't afford to keep it on the road (and no bugger seems to want to buy it for any remotely-credible price) so it sits on the drive, awaiting the possibility that I might one day have the money to restore it properly.

meanwhile, since I can only afford the insurance etc. for one vehicle, I quite often use the disco with just me in it to get from place to place.

I do maintain the bike for fun, admittedly, but that don't cost much.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

Time out. Let's just recap.

I say I'm neutral on Europe. You come up with an emotional outburst which amounts to you equating the EU with communism. You perceive that I'm disagreeing with you (even though I've already stated I'm neither anti nor pro Europe).

So then you come up with a piece telling me I'm not "stupid enough to read the tabloids" - which in itself evidently sums up what you think of the tabloid press - and without any further justification says I'm being patronising, states that I believe myself to be more intelligent than anybody else, and introduces the idea of everybody else being "electoral dunces" (your words).

You then state that because I point out that much of the UK media is controlled privately by people like Murdoch, I want to "curtail the free press" and you then imply I'm a communist!

This is a gem, Julian. You cap it all by saying *I'm* resorting to personal abuse and childish name calling. Amazing. In fact, it's quite a clever bit of psychology when I think about it.

I love your approach to somebody who you've decided disagrees with you. Single them out, drive a wedge between them and everybody else, throw in some highly emotive comments, accuse them of being a communist (this is one of the best bits - me a communist). Deliberately manipulate and misinterpret what they've said to come up with something so far from the truth as to be laughable, always heavily on the attack. Hey everybody, welcome to a climate of democracy and free debate.

I don't need to make snide implications of how people might want to perceive you, Julian, I think you've done enough work there yourself for people to get your measure nicely. Whilst it's tempting to make some analogies I'm not going to use your tactics.

From some of the postings you've made in the past I thought you were opinionated and aggressive, and couldn't tolerate anybody having a different opinion than yourself. However I put it down to the medium. Now I can see I was right the first time. You clearly can't stand any sort of open debate without turning it into a witch-hunt if it disagrees with what you think. Thank goodness for killfiles.

David

Reply to
David French

I'm also thinking of the environmental issues with everybody having

*several* cars. A lot of the environmental costs of a car comes out of the manufacture. Doesn't really add up, does it.

The three main arguments I've heard are:

1) 4x4s are bigger so take up more room - simply not true in many cases. My Volvo was bigger than my old Disco, and it wasn't a particularly big Volvo. Just because they're tall doesn't mean they take up a big area. And if we all drove around in Smarts, is this really going to solve all our congestion problems? Of course not, because the space you have to leave round your car is more significant than the space you take up in it. 2) 4x4s are big smelly polluting monsters - OK so they may be less efficient than a typical saloon car, but what about all the big luxury cars (Merc / Lexus / Jag) which guzzle gas at an equal or greater rate? To recap the earlier comment, let's see people (MPs included) trade in their S-Classes and Jags for a Ford Focus before we start on 4x4s. 3) 4x4s are less safe in accidents (to the people outside) - this is the only one which adds up, but I don't think this in itself is reason to ban them from city centres. I don't have data to back this up, but I would have thought the number of accidents leading to serious injury or fatality would have been lower in congested city centres, where nothing moves very fast anyway, than in suburban areas.

From the discussions I've heard on the radio it seems some people have just decided 4x4s are bad, without really considering whether they can back this up in fact. People seem to feel naturally defensive against 4x4s, presumably because they're in a minority and people find them imposing, and this is being turned into a point of attack.

David

Reply to
David French

I quite agree. I'd be dead against an outright ban of 4x4s anywhere, for the reasons you state. My point was that the debate is around 4x4s in congested cities, not remote lanes and flooded byways. Even the antis haven't suggested that yet! Deliberately exaggerating your opponent's case to the point of ridicule, and then trashing it for being unreasonable, is a poor method of argument.

Reply to
Richard Brookman

No they want a blanket ban on 4WDs, they don't want us on city streets, and they don't want us on green lanes either.

Reply to
Larry

And who would "they" be? Ken and his cronies are looking for a ban in cities. The Ramblers and others want a ban on green lanes. Both are worth arguing against. However, the OP seemed to be complaining about people wanting to ban him from using a Land Rover to carry his four kids and to visit his parishioners in the rain and snow. Nobody has suggested banning that yet - unless I am reading the wrong newspapers.

Reply to
Richard Brookman

If I'm not getting to use half the roads in the country, can I have a 50% rebate on my road fund license please?

P.

Reply to
Paul S. Brown

The Alien/CIA/vatican/masonic/commie conspiracy of course, who else could "they" possibly be :)

I was of course refering to the people who voted Ken in, whom he hopes to please with his latest proclamation

There are also those around (don't ask me for names please) who wanted to get all old cars off the road never mind engine size, because old cars are not as efficient as modern ones, in spite of the fact that the production of modern replacements continues to do environmental damage to a greater degree than the keeping of old ones on the road does.

Reply to
Larry

Aha! Hence the "mason bee" in a previous thread?

I used to know a bloke when I lived in York who was the local organiser for Amnesty International, and a greener, more right-on guy you could not meet. Beard, sandals, love beads (well, it was in the 70s) - and drove a smoky old Morris Minor Traveller. Obviously, the image was all - he told me it did 20 to the gallon, but wasn't interested in the idea of a small, modern (at the time) town car that would do twice the mpg with half the pollution. After all, that would be giving in to "the system". There's no logic in these people.

Reply to
Richard Brookman

Just as another method aiming at the same target (urban use of four wheel drives), this state (NSW) is now talking about a special licence to drive a four wheel drive. This proposal has a lot of the same sort of problems as the 4x4 bans when it comes to implementing it - what is a 4x4? how about small ones such as the RAV4, four wheel drive conversions of popular cars such as the recently released Holdens, and how about large people movers that are the same size or larger than most full size 4x4s - and how about the rural people who have never driven anything else. And for that matter how about the existing 4x4 drivers who have been driving them for many years (45 years in my case, although not exclusively). JD

Reply to
JD

One of my neighbours drives one of the new shape Mondeos, earlier in the year I happened to park along side his car and was suprised to see that his Mondeo was longer than my 110. I've got an 8274 mounted on a not insubstantial bumper and it's still shorter than a Mondeo!!

Does that mean that Mondeo man will be banned from big citys then?

Reply to
Simon Barr

Oh I dunno. He gave the heads up on Enron a long time ago with his Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken.

I now adopt the view (probably incorrectly) attributed to Jezza Paxman whenever listening to any politician:

"Why is this lying bastard lying to me?"

Reply to
Mother

Well....

To be sadly pedantic, Communism did not fail. There has never been any true Communist State - some pathetic and oppressive attempts, but never true Communism.

I for my own part, generally tend to try to avoid all discussions regarding religion and politics. Life is nicer that way, I retain respect for others and avoid getting punched for my views :-)

Reply to
Mother

And don't forget the 2 wheel drive cars with exactly the same engines as the 4x4s.

Reply to
hugh

I am not sure what engines have to do with it - the argument for special licencing is the higher centre of gravity of the 4x4s and consequent different handling. There was a recent flurry of concern about rearward vision from 4x4s resulting in running over children while backing in driveways (a Landcruiser, I think, backing out of a drive ran over a child on the footpath - backing out of a drive is illegal anyway!) - quickly died when tests showed that some of the most popular family cars had worse rearward visibility than the worst 4x4s and some 4x4s were among the best on the market. JD

Reply to
JD

Well that's about the most artificial reason for extra tax I've ever seen. I mentioned engines because in the UK and esp in London, which is what this thread was originally about, the anti's usually claim that

4X4s have bigger engines and/or have worse emissions than cars.
Reply to
hugh

In article , Simon Barr writes

Our other car is a Seat Alhambra (AKA Sharan/Galaxy). It's a seven-seater, and it is slightly shorter, but about 6" wider than my

110, mirror-tip to mirror-tip. We have a very narrow back lane with a T-jct onto a side road. It's much easier to get the Landy in, despite its worse turning circle.

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

The same can be said of democracy although Athens gave it a near try. I think that about one third of adult male citizens were the chairman of the govening council for at least one day in their lives.

Of course it was easier then as over 50% of the population were slaves who didn't count and 50% again were women who counted even less.

nigelH Oh thanks for the public and private replies to my slipped liner problem.

Reply to
Nigel Hewitt

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.