Kens proposed 4x4 ban

In message <[email protected]>, Bob Hobden <[email protected]>
writes
<snip>
>Interestingly, as an example of how a politician thinks, I believe it's the
>French that intend to have a special extra £2,500 Purchase Tax on 4x4's.
<Snip>
A typical Chirac move - guess which countries automotive manufacturers
do not actually build any 4x4's (how I hate the term SUV). Just means
the French will order them from Belgian dealers.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

"hugh" <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >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.
> >
> >
> It's the only policy they have - the rest of the time they just go with
> whatever is the current populist vogue

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?

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

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.

> 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.

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

In message <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>hugh wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>>>Bob Hobden wrote:
>>>
>>>> So our Ken, Mayor of London, is proposing some sort of ban on large,
>>>> polluting, gas guzzling 4x4's entering the city and seems to be
>>>> receiving some applause from various sections.
>>>> Whilst this would not affect most manufacturers much, e.g.Toyota would
>>>> just sell more cars, what effect would it have on Land Rover who don't
>>>> make anything else other than the aforementioned 4x4's?
>>>> Also, I wonder if a Defender van would be caught up in this too, I know
>>>> two workmen that use these in preference to a normal van.
>>>>
>>>> Is it me, or are we no longer living in a democracy.
>>>>
>>>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
>>>
>> And don't forget the 2 wheel drive cars with exactly the same engines as
>> the 4x4s.
>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.
<Snip>
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.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In article <[email protected]>, Simon Barr <[email protected]>
writes
>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.

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.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY, BRISTOL www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

In message <bpdHc.13020$I%[email protected]>, Exit
<[email protected]> writes
>
>"David French" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > My understanding is that Ken wants 4x4's banned in London and others,
>> > especially some Lib Dems, want a ban on the School Run nationwide. How
>> they
>> > intend to legislate that beggars belief and may well show up their
>> ignorance
>> > of the types of vehicles involved.
>>
>> It's frustrating as a Lib Dem voter that the Torys and Labour can do
>> ridiculous things, like invade other countries for political reasons, mess
>
><snippety-snip>
>
>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.
>
>
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

4x4's seem to be unpopular - we're against 4x4s

etc
etc
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>hugh wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>>>Bob Hobden wrote:
>>>
>>>> So our Ken, Mayor of London, is proposing some sort of ban on large,
>>>> polluting, gas guzzling 4x4's entering the city and seems to be
>>>> receiving some applause from various sections.
>>>> Whilst this would not affect most manufacturers much, e.g.Toyota would
>>>> just sell more cars, what effect would it have on Land Rover who don't
>>>> make anything else other than the aforementioned 4x4's?
>>>> Also, I wonder if a Defender van would be caught up in this too, I know
>>>> two workmen that use these in preference to a normal van.
>>>>
>>>> Is it me, or are we no longer living in a democracy.
>>>>
>>>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
>>>
>> And don't forget the 2 wheel drive cars with exactly the same engines as
>> the 4x4s.
>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.
<Snip>
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.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 23:54:39 GMT, "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:48:54 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I think Micheal Moore will also be down there with the pair of them.

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?"


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info

Mother wrote:
>
> 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.

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.

On or around Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:55 +0100 (BST),
[email protected] (Niamh Holding) enlightened us thusly:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>(Richard Brookman) wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>Fine if one can afford to own several cars and choose the most suitable one
>for the occasion

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.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)