Kens proposed 4x4 ban

The problem with the lib-dems is that every single one of their policies is underscored with rabid pro-europeanism. To me it is irrelevant what their stance on 4x4's is when they want to immediately adopt the euro, harmonise all of our taxes and pension funds with europe and hand over our defense and sovreignty lock, stock and barrel to brussels - all without any referendum.

In message , Exit writes

It's the only policy they have - the rest of the time they just go with whatever is the current populist vogue

The Iraq war is unpopular - we're against the war

The public support the troops - we support the troops

So you support the war - no we don't support the war but we will support the troops if they go to war.

What about ID cards - we must give that some serious pondering

What about legalising heroine - we need a public debate about it

etc etc

referendum.

I'm neither anti nor pro Europe myself - I'm fairly ambivalent about it - but one thing I do know is that the vast majority of the British population are anti-Europe without any actual understanding of the implications either way. It's a knee-jerk reaction for most people. I'm not implying this is the case for you, Julian, but it sure as heck is for a large percentage of the population.

As for a referendum, I agree it's a good idea, but realistically, if the Lib Dems were to get voted in, I think it would be a pretty fair sign that the population was pro-Europe. The election would in a way stand for a referendum. But I see your point here.

David

You could argue that about any policy which happens to agree with public opinion. Have you considered that maybe the policies come from a common-sense approach?

And doesn't that argument ring true just a little for David "Let's See What The Sun Says About It First" Blunkett?

No, they were against the war because the government were trying to mislead the public into supporting an illegal invasion of another country, for reasons of politics and oil. It was nothing to do with whether that was the prevailing public opinion.

Abso-bloody-lutely. There is no contradiction in disagreeing with the whole idea of the war, but supporting the troops who have been ordered there. I was against the war (if you hadn't noticed) but I'm hardly going to turn round to the troops who are there doing what they're paid to do (without any say in the matter) and criticise them for that, am I?

If they hadn't supported the troops, you'd have found fault in that too! Haven't you engineered this into a no-win situation?

Libdems say something which goes along with public opinion - they're doing it to curry favour. Libdems say something which goes against public opinion - bunch of idiots who aren't in tune with public opinion.

You've proved *exactly* what I was trying to say about the Lib Dems. Thanks :)

David

Consultation even?

You sure that was the reason, oil, I thought it was to give the militant Muslims somewhere to get at the westerners that wasn't in the west. Somewhere they would be up against a well equiped army and on someone elses land. Everyone expected another 9/11 in the west within a few months and it's not happened, that is more likely the real reason for the Iraq invasion. That, and they did want to get rid of Saddam as he was possibly threatening Israel.

The obvious, preferable, alternative would be to adapt the existing cameras to measure reflected light and charge on that basis.

Series Landie (clean) - 50p/day. Series Landie (used) - free Discovery - £5/day Big Silver Merc - £20/day Big Chrome 4x4 - £50/day

Sounds very fair to me.

Alan

Still missing a V8 Lightweight, saving for a more economical Series Landie.

Surely you should then vote for a party that is ambivalent towards europe and not one which is recklessly pro and damn the consequences?

No offence intended but I do tire of this weak argument. The EU has an annual propaganda budget of 200million euros which it uses to promote its largely unelected self. This money comes from mine and your taxes. No money whatsoever is provided to those who wish to challenge the euro superstates undemocratic dictats. If any part of the electorate is badly informed about the EU this is why, not because The Sun occassionally runs a daft headline.

It's a knee-jerk reaction for most people. I'm not implying this is

Ones own reasoning is always fair, the opposition are always knee-jerk reactionaries. This is the same flawed reasoning that sees 90% of drivers rate themselves as above average - the mathematical contradiction is obvious.

Fortunately they won't, though the biggest problem is apprently the large number of the electorate who don't realise just how keen the libdems are to hand any power they gain in an election immediately over to the unelected franco-german superstate. They really should be made to wear jackets with yellow EU symbols on the back so we can spot them easily in the street. . . . . . ;-)

I'm making an educated guess. There are probably lots of reasons, but none of them had much to do with what they told the public at the time.

Don't forget that 9/11 was nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. There was no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq prior to us invading it. Since we did, there now is.

David

No. There is no one party which accurately represents everything I would go for. Lib Dems are by far the closest at the moment. But of course, I don't agree with all their policies.

So, what are the implications then? Your op focussed on emotive statements rather than an analysis of what the outcomes would be.

Just calling my argument "weak" doesn't make it so. Are you telling me that the majority of the British public are anti-europe because they've understood the pros and cons, analysed the results and made an educated decision? Or is it more likely because of the tabloid press playing the "Germans are going to replace the good old British Pound with monopoly money" card?

Not necessarily. The "opposition's" opinions may or may not be knee-jerk. In this case, I think they are. Taking other examples, such as education and healthcare, I think most people have taken time to weigh up the options, whether or not they agree with my opinions.

So what party are you going to vote for then Julian? :)

Mother" anything, they'd abolish it".

To put it another way, no matter which way you vote, the Government always gets in.

You're over-reacting. No-one is arguing that doctors, farmers, forestry workers (or even men of the cloth) who need a 4WD should not have one and use it. The argument is (AFAIUI) all about using large 4x4s in congested city environments when a small economical car would do the job as well or better, and I think they have a point. My worry is that Labour are once again stoking the old class-envy against a section of society that makes an easy target - last year it was fox-hunters and now it's 4x4 drivers. (Funny how they never gang up against lawyers. Oh, hang on, they are all lawyers.) But that is not the same issue.

If you don't understand and agree 100% with their european plans you should not vote for them however much you agree with their other plans as their european policy involves giving away all sovreignty making their other policies irrelevant as they will not have the power to implement them.

A simple glance at the markets will tell you what the implications are. Compare the UK economy with those of euroland. Compare euroland levels of tax. Look at the euroland pensions crisis - they have only a fraction of the pension funds necessary to maintain their current pension levels, the UK has huge pension reserves the EU is desperate to absorb towards the euroland pension deficit. Compare current UK unemployment levels with those across euroland.

The real implication of the EU is communism - what is commonly refered to in EU circles as 'harmonisation'. Harmonisation in reality means taking an average. This is great if you live in a country which is in the bottom half of the EU - you can expect your standard of living, social security and pensions to rise. If you live in the 4th largest economy in the world (the UK) you can expect the inherent wealth of that economy to be used up to bring the poorer countries of the EU up to the average, while we are dragged down to the average. That is harmonisation.

Your argument is weak because the EU only fund the propaganda for one side. In the UK it is electoral law that all parties who poll above a certain low level are granted free access to party political broadcasts so that the electorate may see all sides. The EU is undemocratic and does not support this fair access for all and thus people only see the EU message or believe the tabloids by your example. This is the fault of undemocratic practices within the EU propaganda machine that under UK law would be illegal. If you want an educated electorate campaign for our taxes to be spent fairly to give both sides, not kept by the EU and spent on one-sided propaganda. If you are not stupid enough to believe the tabloids, it is very patronising of you to assume that most others do. You evidently believe yourself to be far more intelligent that the poor mass of tabloid reading fools who believe everything they read. Perhaps people like yourself should be given several votes to make up for all the electoral dunces who aren't as bright as you? ;-)

You think anti-EU opinions are knee-jerk because you don't agree with them. You have already made it clear you think you know better than much of the electorate - whereas you can see through the nationalistic knee-jerks, the rest of them just drink it in as gospel. I don't have such a patronising attitude towards the electorate, as any successful politician will tell you, the british electorate have a remarkable ability to spot the bullshit and underestimating them has been the downfall of many a politico.

Like you, there is no one party that fully represents my views, but the possibility of our loss of sovreignty via short-sighted, expeditious politicians means that I must put the european question above all others at the coming election. Currently this will lead me to vote Conservative, but I will speedily swap that vote to whichever party gives me the best chance of allowing my country to continue to decide it's own tax, defence and financial decisions in perpituity.

God save the Queen! ;-)

Well I hate japanese SUV's as much as the next (non japanese SUV owning) man but vintage Landies are something different.

Today I did my bit in London, by refusing to take the pedestrian diversion around the works in Kings Cross station and walking against the rush hour traffic on the road, making the routemasters and taxis drive around me, I have pedestrian rights to the road as well :)

No I did not have my Landie with me, I went in by train.

Red Ken whatever exams he may have passed or not passed is either and idiot, or someone who doesn't really give a shit so long as it looks good on some distorted and innacurate manifesto.

I do not think much of people who create a great danger around schools by cocooning there kids, whilst threatening everybody elses in some oversized and unsuitable vehicle for the school run.

But that is not a problem you can solve with a blanket ban. As it was in central London, I saw few 4x4's Central London is not there natural environment anyway, loads of white vans though.

Fine if one can afford to own several cars and choose the most suitable one for the occasion

You obviously haven't seen my colleague's Disco, I think he'd be paid to take it in. :)

You're right - people are over-reacting to this but it's not as simple as saying a small economical car is a better bet in the city. That kind of thinking assumes that either people only stay in one environment or can afford a different car for each environment.

If I need a 4x4 for some of my time and also need to drive into London why should I be punished? In my opinion smart cars are inappropriate for motorway use - will they be punished?

It all boils down to freedom of choice - no urban housewife really needs a lifted, lockered 4x4 for the school run but I believe in a society where the individual may choose and thus if they want one and can afford it, they can have it. A Discovery takes up no more road space than a Vauxhall Vectra so congestion is not the issue, it is all about find a group to blame.

I think Blunkett is an evil man who will rot in hell alongside Saddam, but then I think Micheal Moore will also be down there with the pair of them.

I don't recall that being in the manifesto. In fact the Lib Dems are keen on devolving government to the regions - not centralising to Brussels. I think you are mistaken here.

Huge pension reserves in UK? Huh?

Personally I think there's a big difference between the EU and Communism. There's no question of getting rid of free market capitalism, any more than the UK being governed from London makes it a communist state. Harmonisation is NOT about taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor. It's simply not the case.

Could you clarify, by the way, where this E200m slush fund comes in? Now, how about the power of the media moguls, notably Murdoch, who maintain editorial control over what the majority of the UK press puts out?

Now Julian, it's you who has introduced this idea of "stupid". You say it's evident I believe myself more intelligent etc. In fact here you're just making things up. Please don't insult me by coming up with this crap. You're not reading what I'm saying, you're taking the bits you want to see and ignoring the rest.

In particular do NOT try to pick me out in this way as being some kind of snob. You don't know me, you've never met me, you have no IDEA of what I'm like. You're just being insulting and provocative. You evidently believe that you can bolster your "case" by trying to make me into some sort of intellectual pariah.

Next thing you'll be outside the door with a bloody pitchfork and torch. I can see exactly what you're trying to do here Julian.

No. You've not read what I've said. Julian, take time to read what I'm writing, don't just keep coming up with bullshit. I've not even said I don't agree with them. You're just being an asshole now.

No, I'm not saying that. I said the majority of the electorate don't understand European issues. In fact, if you read what I've written this evening, you'll see that I've not even claimed to understand these issues myself. Stop extrapolating and interpreting to try to make me look a fool.

And if the British public are so good at spotting the bullshit, why do we have the government we have now? Somebody must have voted for them. And I certainly didn't see it until it was too late.