If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old.
If you buy a new car the first hundred yards you drive away from the garage will be the most expensive ground you ever cover - 20% VAT - gone! Given the uncertainty I wouldn't buy a new car. Alternatively look at leasing one - a friend recently got a 'no brainer' deal on a Mini....
Since he plans to keep it for over a decade, it's irrelevant how its value changes on the short time it takes to drive it home.
If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
At the moment, probably. But perhaps we may want to sell it before then if our situation changes. It's the uncertainty. I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old. Or even to keep our old car on the road for longer - though as it's Mrs J's, I'd rather her have something more reliable.
New car sales are going to tank, and people are going to try and keep their old IC cars going for longer. It will also mean there are fewer second-hand cars available.
Not buying a new car will be a hit to the economy.
In addition, just a few years ago the government were advising people to buy diesels, and now diesels are now the spawn of the devil. This also creates uncertainty: what will the government decide is verboten next?
Let's look at another angle: fuel. If all IC cars are to be banned in 14 years, petrol stations will start to close - or at least stop selling petrochemical fuel. This will happen *before* the cut-off date, and it will get harder to get fuel.
There are so many network effects that these idiots can't even be arsed to consider.
Let's have a plan, not just dreams.
I will freely confess I cannot understand why any private buyer would buy a new car. I bought mine second hand from a commercial fleet ten years ago, and it's given me excellent service for 100,000 miles and counting although the end is probably not far away now.
You would be financially better off buying a second hand petrol car, using the money saved to put in an LPG tank, and selling again in four to five years.
I've never bought a new car before. But it's something I've always wanted to do. Due to saving, scrimping and more than a little luck, we're now mortgage free in our early to mid forties, and it'd be good to spend money on something nice. IMV Mrs J deserves something nice, but we can't justify *too* nice ... ;(
There's another point: because of my gammy ankle, we need an automatic, and second-hand automatics are relatively rare, especially if you want something specific. In the past I've just bought second-hands fairly randomly: whatever is available in the class of car I require. The second-hand choice is limited. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably not bother with new.
Owned a Leaf for 3 years. Family fleet now an Ioniq (regular Hybrid version) and an Outlander PHEV company car. I intend to go full EV with the Taxlander's replacement next year now that a choice of 300 mile range cars is/will be available.
As for the charging infrastructure, its coming. BP bought Chargemaster, Shell are partnered with Ionity. You will see rapid chargers appearing at all of their filling stations - they want to sell you coffee and cakes like they do everyone else
If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
At the moment, probably. But perhaps we may want to sell it before then if our situation changes. It's the uncertainty. I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old. Or even to keep our old car on the road for longer - though as it's Mrs J's, I'd rather her have something more reliable.
New car sales are going to tank, and people are going to try and keep their old IC cars going for longer. It will also mean there are fewer second-hand cars available.
Not buying a new car will be a hit to the economy.
In addition, just a few years ago the government were advising people to buy diesels, and now diesels are now the spawn of the devil. This also creates uncertainty: what will the government decide is verboten next?
Let's look at another angle: fuel. If all IC cars are to be banned in 14 years, petrol stations will start to close - or at least stop selling petrochemical fuel. This will happen *before* the cut-off date, and it will get harder to get fuel.
There are so many network effects that these idiots can't even be arsed to consider.
Let's have a plan, not just dreams.
I will freely confess I cannot understand why any private buyer would buy a new car. I bought mine second hand from a commercial fleet ten years ago, and it's given me excellent service for 100,000 miles and counting although the end is probably not far away now.
You would be financially better off buying a second hand petrol car, using the money saved to put in an LPG tank, and selling again in four to five years.
I've never bought a new car before. But it's something I've always wanted to do. Due to saving, scrimping and more than a little luck, we're now mortgage free in our early to mid forties, and it'd be good to spend money on something nice. IMV Mrs J deserves something nice, but we can't justify *too* nice ... ;(
There's another point: because of my gammy ankle, we need an automatic, and second-hand automatics are relatively rare, especially if you want something specific. In the past I've just bought second-hands fairly randomly: whatever is available in the class of car I require. The second-hand choice is limited. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably not bother with new.
If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old.
If you buy a new car the first hundred yards you drive away from the garage will be the most expensive ground you ever cover - 20% VAT - gone! Given the uncertainty I wouldn't buy a new car. Alternatively look at leasing one - a friend recently got a 'no brainer' deal on a Mini....
Since he plans to keep it for over a decade, it's irrelevant how its value changes on the short time it takes to drive it home.
Unless his circumstances change and his plans change.
If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
At the moment, probably. But perhaps we may want to sell it before then if our situation changes. It's the uncertainty. I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old. Or even to keep our old car on the road for longer - though as it's Mrs J's, I'd rather her have something more reliable.
New car sales are going to tank, and people are going to try and keep their old IC cars going for longer. It will also mean there are fewer second-hand cars available.
Not buying a new car will be a hit to the economy.
In addition, just a few years ago the government were advising people to buy diesels, and now diesels are now the spawn of the devil. This also creates uncertainty: what will the government decide is verboten next?
Let's look at another angle: fuel. If all IC cars are to be banned in 14 years, petrol stations will start to close - or at least stop selling petrochemical fuel. This will happen *before* the cut-off date, and it will get harder to get fuel.
There are so many network effects that these idiots can't even be arsed to consider.
Let's have a plan, not just dreams.
Since, in your scenario the value of every other non-electric car will also fall, you should be able to switch models at no additional cost if your circumstances change during the ten year period.
I agree politicians should have a better plan. Nevertheless there is no real downside for the buy-and-hold buyer right now (indeed buyers can probably get good deals on the back of the uncertainty).
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Diesels are already in freefall. I wanted to buy an E46 330d estate as my E36 M3 estate has gradually become worth serious money so I sold it. I could buy nice ones all day for two grand but wanted one with a blown turbo (so I can put a big turbo on it). I ended up getting two (one for parts) for just over 1200 quid!
Our next new car will probably be a Taycan. There is no way I would plough big money into an IC car now unless it was something collectible that's likely to appreciate.
A £60k car rather proves my point ...
You are lucky to be able to afford to choose to buy an all-electric car nowadays. For most people spending that much on a car is a dream.
And as the ban's going to include hybrids, it's also knocking out something that is more affordable (although still not utterly so) today.
I'd love it if these geniuses (I mean fuckwits) could come up with a plan to get from here, to the glorious world they want to inflict on us. Leaving aside the cars themselves, just a plan for the infrastructure changes needed would be useful.
As an aside, it would be good if MPs also addressed how the UK could gain from the tech required, instead of it just being a massive money sink. But it seems well just be throwing money to foreign companies and killing our own industry.
Let's have a realistic plan.
switching to an electric car from an old petrol car would cost us at least £2500 per year, mainly in depreciation. we do less than 2000 miles a year. there are also range issues with an electric car. it would be cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, to switch to ecotricity.
If you do less than 2000 miles pa, why do you need a car? Wouldn’t taxis or public transport (if there is any) be a better bet?
When I retired we went from two cars to one; we organised our lives to manage..... I must admit if I haven’t got a reputation as a lift scrounger I deserve one, although I’m always willing to give them...... and in the 15 years since I retired I think I’ve used taxis about three times, apart from airport trips.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Diesels are already in freefall. I wanted to buy an E46 330d estate as my E36 M3 estate has gradually become worth serious money so I sold it. I could buy nice ones all day for two grand but wanted one with a blown turbo (so I can put a big turbo on it). I ended up getting two (one for parts) for just over 1200 quid!
Our next new car will probably be a Taycan. There is no way I would plough big money into an IC car now unless it was something collectible that's likely to appreciate.
A £60k car rather proves my point ...
You are lucky to be able to afford to choose to buy an all-electric car nowadays. For most people spending that much on a car is a dream.
And as the ban's going to include hybrids, it's also knocking out something that is more affordable (although still not utterly so) today.
I'd love it if these geniuses (I mean fuckwits) could come up with a plan to get from here, to the glorious world they want to inflict on us. Leaving aside the cars themselves, just a plan for the infrastructure changes needed would be useful.
As an aside, it would be good if MPs also addressed how the UK could gain from the tech required, instead of it just being a massive money sink. But it seems well just be throwing money to foreign companies and killing our own industry.
Let's have a realistic plan.
The Leaf is £27,235 apparently, although that's more than I'd like to pay for a car.
160 mile range max in best coonditions. That's not enough for us, and is far more expensive than we can afford. And there's nowhere for her to charge at work.
"In 2017, the entry-level cost of an average small car ranged from about £10,635 to £12,715."
I'm not arguing, the time isn't right for me either yet. However, you've not mentioned running costs.
And you've not mentioned the cost of getting a charger into my home, or a pick-up to pick us up when we've run out of juice.
Someone on our street has a leaf. It is one of three cars they own; the others are sporty fuel-hogs. It's feels almost as if the car is a religious indulgence ...
If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old.
If you buy a new car the first hundred yards you drive away from the garage will be the most expensive ground you ever cover - 20% VAT - gone! Given the uncertainty I wouldn't buy a new car. Alternatively look at leasing one - a friend recently got a 'no brainer' deal on a Mini....
Since he plans to keep it for over a decade, it's irrelevant how its value changes on the short time it takes to drive it home.
Unless his circumstances change and his plans change.
If house prices fall, you'll still be able to move house. Probably more cheaply.
And you've not mentioned the cost of getting a charger into my home, or a pick-up to pick us up when we've run out of juice.
Someone on our street has a leaf. It is one of three cars they own; the others are sporty fuel-hogs. It's feels almost as if the car is a religious indulgence ...
I've got this mental image now of somebody sitting by the side of a motorway with a dead Leaf next to them, saying, 'Karma's a bitch. I shouldn't have done 140 on the M54 the other day.'
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
Is electricity really that much cheaper than petrol? Even with my solar panels I would question that.
Another point to consider is we still can't know how well the performance of these new batteries holds up as they age. You can easily add several thousand more for a replacement.
Lisbon was critical. Not just because of Article 50, but because the electorate's trust was broken. Two parties out of three reneged on manifesto pledges.
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
I have a Leaf and I love it - range is an issue.. it’s the old one which does about 80 miles. But it’s a lovely drive and ideal for my needs (7-mile commute and sundry dad’s taxi duties). I’d probably want a reliable real-world range of 200-300 miles before I’d think about swapping our other one, which needs to do weekends away, dropping off kids at uni etc.
My charging point was provided free by Nissan and HMG (thank you all!), and I’m with a renewable supplier, so I’m not feeling that guilty about increased emissions from power stations (though I take that point in general).
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
Is electricity really that much cheaper than petrol? Even with my solar panels I would question that.
Another point to consider is we still can't know how well the performance of these new batteries holds up as they age. You can easily add several thousand more for a replacement.
Yes, the polarisation is Germany is striking - the AfD have seemingly hit a ceiling of 15-16% but that's still a lot, while the Greens are doing really well mainly by not being in government and being the anti-AfD: if you want to say you LIKE immigration and Europe and hate nationalism they're the go-to option. More nuanced and centrist positions are bombing and the CDU and SPD are now both in serious trouble. Might we see a Green-led government in the next decade?
On topic. Excellent thread. The absolutists on both side only see the weaknesses of the decisions taken - not the problems presented by the alternatives.
Just as the number one job of a pilot is to "fly the plane" (sounds obvious, but the number of crashes that occur because pilots don't is considerable), the number one job of a minority government Prime Minister is to "keep the show on the road" - and for the last (nearly) 500 days Mrs May has done just that. Along with weekly predictions that 'she's had it now' and 'the game is up', "she'll be gone by/during/after conference" (twice).
Here's a prediction. The UK and Brussels will cobble something together in December, despite rising tides of hysteria and gloom mongering in November (just as well "the Tory party only ever panics in a crisis"). In January Parliament will pass it, because they will have run out of time to do much else, and on March 29 the UK will leave the EU.
This time next year, Mrs May will either still be in situ (as will Magic Grandpa) or will have gone of her own volition, broadly thanked for having herded a bunch of fractious squabbling cats towards the exit.
In May the EU Parliament elections will take place - and that's when it will get really interesting (unfortunately).
In order to get through a fudged compromise, it has to be credible if imperfect. You need to be able to create the suspension of disbelief that what you have is a decent deal.
Thanks to the EU, the only deal she can bring back will be one that crosses all her red lines and involves an abject climbdown on NI, an issue which she said she would never accept. And, of course, one which has no trade deal.
Parliament will not pass a deal that attempts to limit British freedom of action permanently.
Much more likely the Tories will move against May now. I have long predicted she will be gone by Christmas and I am now even more convinced. But rather than the ERG it will be the Cabinet that gets her.
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49 specifically to control the negotiations. If the UK diverges from the EU by that fact it creates a hard border in Ireland. People in the UK may decide it's a price worth paying or they don't care and they may also object to the alternative of an Irish Sea border. The point is, the EU prioritises no hard border in Ireland. The consequences of that on the UK - no divergence or an Irish Sea border - isn't its concern.
More on this. The EU is pushing the border issue at the insistence of the Irish. The UK government has never accepted the Irish have a legitimate interest in its border. James Forsyth is undoubtedly close to UK government thinking in his interesting article
Having said that, I think the EU is heavy handed here. I would put the no divergence or Irish Sea border in as a poison pill rather something you require the other party to sign up to. ie the treaties between the EU and the UK will lapse if the UK takes steps that require goods or people to be checked at the Irish land border.
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
I have a Leaf and I love it - range is an issue.. it’s the old one which does about 80 miles. But it’s a lovely drive and ideal for my needs (7-mile commute and sundry dad’s taxi duties). I’d probably want a reliable real-world range of 200-300 miles before I’d think about swapping our other one, which needs to do weekends away, dropping off kids at uni etc.
My charging point was provided free by Nissan and HMG (thank you all!), and I’m with a renewable supplier, so I’m not feeling that guilty about increased emissions from power stations (though I take that point in general).
Hyundai Kona tested in Norway doing 300 miles on a charge. Kia Niro will do the same when that goes on sale in the new year, as will the big battery Leaf.
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
I have a Leaf and I love it - range is an issue.. it’s the old one which does about 80 miles. But it’s a lovely drive and ideal for my needs (7-mile commute and sundry dad’s taxi duties). I’d probably want a reliable real-world range of 200-300 miles before I’d think about swapping our other one, which needs to do weekends away, dropping off kids at uni etc.
My charging point was provided free by Nissan and HMG (thank you all!), and I’m with a renewable supplier, so I’m not feeling that guilty about increased emissions from power stations (though I take that point in general).
Don’t try to confuse the PB fuckwits with the facts.
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
I would have thought my last sentence was obvious: if you want such a massive change, you look into it, the problems it will cause, mitigations for them, and devise a plan. You don't just dictate and hope it'll happen. That's insanity.
Especially when it'll just change next year when they decide on something else.
Mrs J's old car is 12 years old, becoming unreliable, and she needs to do well over the average national mileage per year. We need something before the worst of winter strikes.
"electric tech will get better "
There are four factors: cost, capacity, speed of charging and safety. The first three of these, and preferably the fourth as well, need massive improvements, sometimes of an order of magnitude. That's a massive ask, especially when improvements are like squeezing a balloon.
is he trying to do a "Boris"?...., he almost comes across as petulant...the party faithful will not like it
The House magazine has become more interesting lately - it was always almost unreadable, full of bland statements of opinion by representatives of each party, plus a superficial interview. New editor, maybe?
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Diesels are already in freefall. I wanted to buy an E46 330d estate as my E36 M3 estate has gradually become worth serious money so I sold it. I could buy nice ones all day for two grand but wanted one with a blown turbo (so I can put a big turbo on it). I ended up getting two (one for parts) for just over 1200 quid!
Our next new car will probably be a Taycan. There is no way I would plough big money into an IC car now unless it was something collectible that's likely to appreciate.
A £60k car rather proves my point ...
You are lucky to be able to afford to choose to buy an all-electric car nowadays. For most people spending that much on a car is a dream.
And as the ban's going to include hybrids, it's also knocking out something that is more affordable (although still not utterly so) today.
I'd love it if these geniuses (I mean fuckwits) could come up with a plan to get from here, to the glorious world they want to inflict on us. Leaving aside the cars themselves, just a plan for the infrastructure changes needed would be useful.
As an aside, it would be good if MPs also addressed how the UK could gain from the tech required, instead of it just being a massive money sink. But it seems well just be throwing money to foreign companies and killing our own industry.
Let's have a realistic plan.
The Leaf is £27,235 apparently, although that's more than I'd like to pay for a car.
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
I have a Leaf and I love it - range is an issue.. it’s the old one which does about 80 miles. But it’s a lovely drive and ideal for my needs (7-mile commute and sundry dad’s taxi duties). I’d probably want a reliable real-world range of 200-300 miles before I’d think about swapping our other one, which needs to do weekends away, dropping off kids at uni etc.
My charging point was provided free by Nissan and HMG (thank you all!), and I’m with a renewable supplier, so I’m not feeling that guilty about increased emissions from power stations (though I take that point in general).
Don’t try to confuse the PB fuckwits with the facts.
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
Is electricity really that much cheaper than petrol? Even with my solar panels I would question that.
Another point to consider is we still can't know how well the performance of these new batteries holds up as they age. You can easily add several thousand more for a replacement.
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
Is electricity really that much cheaper than petrol? Even with my solar panels I would question that.
Another point to consider is we still can't know how well the performance of these new batteries holds up as they age. You can easily add several thousand more for a replacement.
I would have thought my last sentence was obvious: if you want such a massive change, you look into it, the problems it will cause, mitigations for them, and devise a plan. You don't just dictate and hope it'll happen. That's insanity.
Especially when it'll just change next year when they decide on something else..
If only somebody had explained this to May and Barnier.
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
Is electricity really that much cheaper than petrol? Even with my solar panels I would question that.
Another point to consider is we still can't know how well the performance of these new batteries holds up as they age. You can easily add several thousand more for a replacement.
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
I would have thought my last sentence was obvious: if you want such a massive change, you look into it, the problems it will cause, mitigations for them, and devise a plan. You don't just dictate and hope it'll happen. That's insanity.
"But this isn't the worst possible way to get there."
It seems incongruous to what you said before, that's what I meant - I would have expected the sentence to be, "this *is* the worst possible way to get there", although I would consider that an exaggeration.
An electric car came up beside me yesterday when I was walking the dog; I only noticed it when it was very close. Whatever they decide, they need to make some kind of noise. Isn't there research that suggested a duck quack is the least annoying yet most effective for such purpose?
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49 specifically to control the negotiations. If the UK diverges from the EU by that fact it creates a hard border in Ireland. People in the UK may decide it's a price worth paying or they don't care and they may also object to the alternative of an Irish Sea border. The point is, the EU prioritises no hard border in Ireland. The consequences of that on the UK - no divergence or an Irish Sea border - isn't its concern.
Except that it is
They say no hard border = splitting the U.K. vs SM+CU (with FoM)
They have probably overplayed their hand with the result they will end up with a hard border and a pissed off neighbour
If they had been more thoughtful a solution could have been found
As only the well-off can afford an electric car at the moment, the government are giving the well-off a £4,500 bung. That'll be much less when electric car sales increase because their cost have decreased - i.e. when the plebs can afford them.
I'd like an electric future. But this isn't the worst possible way to get there.
So 23k for an electric car vs. 10k for a normal one. So you'll make your money back in savings in 10 years, assuming no discount factor, 12k miles/year etc.
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
Is electricity really that much cheaper than petrol? Even with my solar panels I would question that.
Another point to consider is we still can't know how well the performance of these new batteries holds up as they age. You can easily add several thousand more for a replacement.
I would question those figures. 3p per mile seems very low to me. I notice their workings out appear to be back of an envelope.
I would also point out you are assuming no increase in electricity bills - yet mine went up 40% in July.
My fuel cost is between a third and a half of what I spent on diesel (both small hatchbacks - Leaf v Megane). Obviously fluctuations in both oil and leccy prices will affect that.
On battery life/capacity (anecdote alert)... mine is nearly 4 years old and is showing no signs of reducing. I heard another anecdote of a cabbie (!) who’d done 120k miles and experiences the same.That’s good, because warnings that they might need replacing every three years were a big concern when I bought it, and the cost of Renault’s lease scheme.. reassuring if the shorter life was the case.. would have been astronomical in hindsight.
Lisbon was critical. Not just because of Article 50, but because the electorate's trust was broken. Two parties out of three reneged on manifesto pledges.
I still think Cameron behaves reasonably then
There was literally no point in a referendum on Lisbon once it had been signed.
Nice thread header by the way. I agree that TM had little choice on A50, her Brexiteers wouldn't have stood for longer delays.
For the backstop - I think the original sin was her poor election performance. Had she maintained her majority, she'd have happily had a backstop with a border in the Irish sea and the DUP would have just had to lump it.
Banning all diesel and petrol cars in 14 years is far too soon. I could get behind the 2040 date, as it was just about possible to get the car tech and charging infrastructure in place. Since a car can reasonably be expected to last 14 years, this new date will start affecting buying decisions today. And this is worse as it also includes hybrids.
And there are *no* replacements for the cars most plebs use, nor is there any reasonable charging infrastructure. The chances of this being true in 14 years is, frankly, unlikely.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
I have complained to the Public Service Ombudsman in Wales (Nick Bennett) before on other matters.
There’s no point.
Bennett was CEO of Community Housing Cymru, the umbrella organisation for housing associations, from July 2006 until July 2014. Bennett is also close to ‘Welsh’ Labour, having been in business with a former Labour minister.
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49 specifically to control the negotiations. If the UK diverges from the EU by that fact it creates a hard border in Ireland. People in the UK may decide it's a price worth paying or they don't care and they may also object to the alternative of an Irish Sea border. The point is, the EU prioritises no hard border in Ireland. The consequences of that on the UK - no divergence or an Irish Sea border - isn't its concern.
Except that it is
They say no hard border = splitting the U.K. vs SM+CU (with FoM)
They have probably overplayed their hand with the result they will end up with a hard border and a pissed off neighbour
If they had been more thoughtful a solution could have been found
Or a United Ireland, polling in Northern Ireland is clear if Northern Ireland leaves the single market and customs union with no backstop that may be the end result
On topic. Excellent thread. The absolutists on both side only see the weaknesses of the decisions taken - not the problems presented by the alternatives.
Just as the number one job of a pilot is to "fly the plane" (sounds obvious, but the number of crashes that occur because pilots don't is considerable), the number one job of a minority government Prime Minister is to "keep the show on the road" - and for the last (nearly) 500 days Mrs May has done just that. Along with weekly predictions that 'she's had it now' and 'the game is up', "she'll be gone by/during/after conference" (twice).
Here's a prediction. The UK and Brussels will cobble something together in December, despite rising tides of hysteria and gloom mongering in November (just as well "the Tory party only ever panics in a crisis"). In January Parliament will pass it, because they will have run out of time to do much else, and on March 29 the UK will leave the EU.
This time next year, Mrs May will either still be in situ (as will Magic Grandpa) or will have gone of her own volition, broadly thanked for having herded a bunch of fractious squabbling cats towards the exit.
In May the EU Parliament elections will take place - and that's when it will get really interesting (unfortunately).
I have long predicted she will be gone by Christmas
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49 specifically to control the negotiations. If the UK diverges from the EU by that fact it creates a hard border in Ireland. People in the UK may decide it's a price worth paying or they don't care and they may also object to the alternative of an Irish Sea border. The point is, the EU prioritises no hard border in Ireland. The consequences of that on the UK - no divergence or an Irish Sea border - isn't its concern.
Except that it is
They say no hard border = splitting the U.K. vs SM+CU (with FoM)
They have probably overplayed their hand with the result they will end up with a hard border and a pissed off neighbour
If they had been more thoughtful a solution could have been found
Or a United Ireland, polling in Northern Ireland is clear if Northern Ireland leaves the single market and customs union with no backstop that may be the end result
Until people work out how much poorer they will be outside the UK.....
On topic. Excellent thread. The absolutists on both side only see the weaknesses of the decisions taken - not the problems presented by the alternatives.
Just as the number one job of a pilot is to "fly the plane" (sounds obvious, but the number of crashes that occur because pilots don't is considerable), the number one job of a minority government Prime Minister is to "keep the show on the road" - and for the last (nearly) 500 days Mrs May has done just that. Along with weekly predictions that 'she's had it now' and 'the game is up', "she'll be gone by/during/after conference" (twice).
Here's a prediction. The UK and Brussels will cobble something together in December, despite rising tides of hysteria and gloom mongering in November (just as well "the Tory party only ever panics in a crisis"). In January Parliament will pass it, because they will have run out of time to do much else, and on March 29 the UK will leave the EU.
This time next year, Mrs May will either still be in situ (as will Magic Grandpa) or will have gone of her own volition, broadly thanked for having herded a bunch of fractious squabbling cats towards the exit.
In May the EU Parliament elections will take place - and that's when it will get really interesting (unfortunately).
In order to get through a fudged compromise, it has to be credible if imperfect. You need to be able to create the suspension of disbelief that what you have is a decent deal.
Thanks to the EU, the only deal she can bring back will be one that crosses all her red lines and involves an abject climbdown on NI, an issue which she said she would never accept. And, of course, one which has no trade deal.
Parliament will not pass a deal that attempts to limit British freedom of action permanently.
Much more likely the Tories will move against May now. I have long predicted she will be gone by Christmas and I am now even more convinced. But rather than the ERG it will be the Cabinet that gets her.
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49 specifically to control the negotiations. If the UK diverges from the EU by that fact it creates a hard border in Ireland. People in the UK may decide it's a price worth paying or they don't care and they may also object to the alternative of an Irish Sea border. The point is, the EU prioritises no hard border in Ireland. The consequences of that on the UK - no divergence or an Irish Sea border - isn't its concern.
They have probably overplayed their hand with the result they will end up with a hard border and a pissed off neighbour
If they had been more thoughtful a solution could have been found
Interesting contrast with that other "contentious" issue - Gibraltar - where left to themselves, the British, Spanish & Gibraltarians seem to have been able to sort things out for themselves (with the tougher nuts punted into the future) - and this over a territory with disputed sovereignty (which hasn't been resolved, neither, wisely, have they tried to).
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Diesels are already in freefall. I wanted to buy an E46 330d estate as my E36 M3 estate has gradually become worth serious money so I sold it. I could buy nice ones all day for two grand but wanted one with a blown turbo (so I can put a big turbo on it). I ended up getting two (one for parts) for just over 1200 quid!
Our next new car will probably be a Taycan. There is no way I would plough big money into an IC car now unless it was something collectible that's likely to appreciate.
A £60k car rather proves my point ...
You are lucky to be able to afford to choose to buy an all-electric car nowadays. For most people spending that much on a car is a dream.
Let's have a realistic plan.
The Leaf is £27,235 apparently, although that's more than I'd like to pay for a car.
160 mile range max in best coonditions. That's not enough for us, and is far more expensive than we can afford. And there's nowhere for her to charge at work.
"In 2017, the entry-level cost of an average small car ranged from about £10,635 to £12,715."
I'm not arguing, the time isn't right for me either yet. However, you've not mentioned running costs.
And you've not mentioned the cost of getting a charger into my home, or a pick-up to pick us up when we've run out of juice.
Someone on our street has a leaf. It is one of three cars they own; the others are sporty fuel-hogs. It's feels almost as if the car is a religious indulgence ...
My brother has a 50 year old Triumph Spitfire in the London Low emission zone, as a classic vehicle it is exempt, and also from road tax and MOT. Insurance is £100 per year. Bargain!
My nephew is wanting to train as a garage mechanic, but will that exist in the future? Electric vehicles have such low maintenence requirements that may too be a dying industry.
My 10 year old Fiat is probably my last IC car, and good for a couple of years yet, but if I were replacing it soon would go for a plug in hybrid like the Ioniq.
"But this isn't the worst possible way to get there."
It seems incongruous to what you said before, that's what I meant - I would have expected the sentence to be, "this *is* the worst possible way to get there", although I would consider that an exaggeration.
You're right. Sorry, my mistake. That's what comes from my incompetently editing a post.
I fail to see a realistic worse way of getting there. I mean, government's *could* just ban all IC cars tomorrow, which would be a disaster. But that madness would soon fail. This is much more pernicious in its effects.
I do see this as a rich versus poor thing: people who are well-off can afford the luxury of an electric car. Most of us cannot, and betting that they will be able to in the future is a big gamble.
Then there's the infrastructure. Picking a random suburban street in a random town: how will these people get chargers?
And multiply that cost and inconvenience by thousands of other streets.
There may be network advantages to electric cars, e.g. as 'stores' of power. On the other hand, the network probably cannot handle the load millions of electric cars will place on it. Who pays for that upgrade?
The Lisbon Treaty is an example of a certain class of politician.
They are the ones with an aim - which is to change and shape society into what they want it to be, Democracy be b*ggered. The ends will justify the means because they know they are right.
Not all, politicians are in that group, some have more noble aims, such as representing their electors' views, but these are the ones who remain ineffectual, languishing on the back benches. Thatcher and Brown are good examples of the first group. So, in their own way are Major, Cameron, Blair and Miliband.
Why should Brown allow a vote on Europe when he knows he's right?. Why should Blair heed the public when he knows he's right on Iraq?. And Thatcher was TINA.
Political parties are designed to encourage this sort of leader.
My brother has a 50 year old Triumph Spitfire in the London Low emission zone, as a classic vehicle it is exempt, and also from road tax and MOT. Insurance is £100 per year. Bargain!
My nephew is wanting to train as a garage mechanic, but will that exist in the future? Electric vehicles have such low maintenence requirements that may too be a dying industry.
My 10 year old Fiat is probably my last IC car, and good for a couple of years yet, but if I were replacing it soon would go for a plug in hybrid like the Ioniq.
You c an afford to go for an Ioniq (we've been looking at one too). But Hybrids would also be banned under this madness.
That I cannot understand, as they're a good middle ground. Set regulations for engine efficiency coupled with battery range, and you'd get many of the advantages of electrics and IC - especially in cities.
Carl Mortished is a Canadian financial journalist and freelance consultant based in the U.K. With a career spanning investment banking, journalism and consulting for global companies, he was for many years a financial writer and columnist for The Times of London.
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
I have a Leaf and I love it - range is an issue.. it’s the old one which does about 80 miles. But it’s a lovely drive and ideal for my needs (7-mile commute and sundry dad’s taxi duties). I’d probably want a reliable real-world range of 200-300 miles before I’d think about swapping our other one, which needs to do weekends away, dropping off kids at uni etc.
My charging point was provided free by Nissan and HMG (thank you all!), and I’m with a renewable supplier, so I’m not feeling that guilty about increased emissions from power stations (though I take that point in general).
Don’t try to confuse the PB fuckwits with the facts.
How very pleasant of you.
Seriously, it wasn't even a political discussion where you might expect frayed tempers, what was the point of being insulting? I hope it gave a nice feeling of self satisfaction at least.
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49 specifically to control the negotiations. If the UK diverges from the EU by that fact it creates a hard border in Ireland. People in the UK may decide it's a price worth paying or they don't care and they may also object to the alternative of an Irish Sea border. The point is, the EU prioritises no hard border in Ireland. The consequences of that on the UK - no divergence or an Irish Sea border - isn't its concern.
More on this. The EU is pushing the border issue at the insistence of the Irish. The UK government has never accepted the Irish have a legitimate interest in its border. James Forsyth is undoubtedly close to UK government thinking in his interesting article
Having said that, I think the EU is heavy handed here. I would put the no divergence or Irish Sea border in as a poison pill rather something you require the other party to sign up to. ie the treaties between the EU and the UK will lapse if the UK takes steps that require goods or people to be checked at the Irish land border.
This is a good article. One point it makes which looks valid is that the Cabinet’s back up plan is not Remain, SM+CU etc, but a managed no deal. The thinking is that the UK will offer to pay the Brexit Bill in return for agreements to keep things on the rails in a WTO transition. That is why Hammond was preparing the way with his comments this week, which clearly don’t reflect the legal position.
I suggested a similar approach a few days back although at a much lower price - referral of the Brexit Bill to the ICJ.
The full payment idea is a dreadful outcome brought on by incompetence. But I suspect it would be much more likely to pass muster with the Tory party than any other option. It delivers Brexit without the potential for major disruption and allows them to kick out May straight afterwards. The Irish border will get resolved over time since it will remain open, and eventually a CETA deal will be agreed based on a technology solution that will largely already be running.
Much as I feel we should never have gotten here, I would accept this solution given where we are now (accept does not mean prefer!). But it needs to happen soon or there is not enough time to make the arrangements.
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49 specifically to control the negotiations. If the UK diverges from the EU by that fact it creates a hard border in Ireland. People in the UK may decide it's a price worth paying or they don't care and they may also object to the alternative of an Irish Sea border. The point is, the EU prioritises no hard border in Ireland. The consequences of that on the UK - no divergence or an Irish Sea border - isn't its concern.
Except that it is
They say no hard border = splitting the U.K. vs SM+CU (with FoM)
They have probably overplayed their hand with the result they will end up with a hard border and a pissed off neighbour
If they had been more thoughtful a solution could have been found
Or a United Ireland, polling in Northern Ireland is clear if Northern Ireland leaves the single market and customs union with no backstop that may be the end result
Until people work out how much poorer they will be outside the UK.....
The Republic of Ireland now has a higher GDP per capita than the UK and in a No Deal Brexit the UK would be substantially poorer unless it went full Singapore which is unlikely
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
I have a Leaf and I love it - range is an issue.. it’s the old one which does about 80 miles. But it’s a lovely drive and ideal for my needs (7-mile commute and sundry dad’s taxi duties). I’d probably want a reliable real-world range of 200-300 miles before I’d think about swapping our other one, which needs to do weekends away, dropping off kids at uni etc.
My charging point was provided free by Nissan and HMG (thank you all!), and I’m with a renewable supplier, so I’m not feeling that guilty about increased emissions from power stations (though I take that point in general).
Don’t try to confuse the PB fuckwits with the facts.
How very pleasant of you.
Seriously, it wasn't even a political discussion where you might expect frayed tempers, what was the point of being insulting? I hope it gave a nice feeling of self satisfaction at least.
Bromptonaut is a computer script run from Russia.
He is working to thwart Remain by making its supporters look like offensive boors.
Boiling it down so simplistically into a catchy summary quote doesn't make it right. We are going through some difficult politics right now, but would Canadians or Germans or whoever think that the way they are being viewed overseas must be an entirely accurate assessment of themselves?
Yes, it's essentially paragraph 49 that put the EU in complete charge of the negotiations.
I don't think the EU included paragraph 49n't its concern.
More on this. The EU is pushing the border issue at the insistence of the Irish. The UK government has never accepted the Irish have a legitimate interest in its border. James Forsyth is undoubtedly close to UK government thinking in his interesting article
Having said that, I think the EU is heavy handed here. I would put the no divergence or Irish Sea border in as a poison pill rather something you require the other party to sign up to. ie the treaties between the EU and the UK will lapse if the UK takes steps that require goods or people to be checked at the Irish land border.
This is a good article. One point it makes which looks valid is that the Cabinet’s back up plan is not Remain, SM+CU etc, but a managed no deal. The thinking is that the UK will offer to pay the Brexit Bill in return for agreements to keep things on the rails in a WTO transition. That is why Hammond was preparing the way with his comments this week, which clearly don’t reflect the legal position.
I suggested a similar approach a few days back although at a much lower price - referral of the Brexit Bill to the ICJ.
The full payment idea is a dreadful outcome brought on by incompetence. But I suspect it would be much more likely to pass muster with the Tory party than any other option. It delivers Brexit without the potential for major disruption and allows them to kick out May straight afterwards. The Irish border will get resolved over time since it will remain open, and eventually a CETA deal will be agreed based on a technology solution that will largely already be running.
Much as I feel we should never have gotten here, I would accept this solution given where we are now (accept does not mean prefer!). But it needs to happen soon or there is not enough time to make the arrangements.
That option would not pass Parliament. The opposition would never vote for WTO terms and economic disaster and a potential break up of the Union and payments for the privilege and at least 40 Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than accept WTO terms plus payments, probably more.
Carl Mortished is a Canadian financial journalist and freelance consultant based in the U.K. With a career spanning investment banking, journalism and consulting for global companies, he was for many years a financial writer and columnist for The Times of London.
Banning all diesel and petrol cars in 14 years is far too soon. I could get behind the 2040 date, as it was just about possible to get the car tech and charging infrastructure in place. Since a car can reasonably be expected to last 14 years, this new date will start affecting buying decisions today. And this is worse as it also includes hybrids.
And there are *no* replacements for the cars most plebs use, nor is there any reasonable charging infrastructure. The chances of this being true in 14 years is, frankly, unlikely.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Fuckwits. Stupid, arsing fuckwits.
(Guess who is about to buy their first new car?)
What car are you going for?
Currently looking at an i20 or i30. I'd quite like to go for a hybrid Ioniq, but Mrs J thinks it's a little too expensive and a little too large for her.
If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old.
If you buy a new car the first hundred yards you drive away from the garage will be the most expensive ground you ever cover - 20% VAT - gone! Given the uncertainty I wouldn't buy a new car. Alternatively look at leasing one - a friend recently got a 'no brainer' deal on a Mini....
That’s very good advice. Petrolheady car people tend to dislike the whole concept of leasing, but for people with busy lives who can’t be faffed with running old cars and/or not having a car and a giant bill when the bloody thing breaks down, full service leases are a great idea. If more people moved onto them - and gave up the idea of ‘owning’ a car - we could rapidly get inefficient old stock off the roads and advance much more rapidly to a cleaner national fleet.
This is a good article. One point it makes which looks valid is that the Cabinet’s back up plan is not Remain, SM+CU etc, but a managed no deal. The thinking is that the UK will offer to pay the Brexit Bill in return for agreements to keep things on the rails in a WTO transition. That is why Hammond was preparing the way with his comments this week, which clearly don’t reflect the legal position.
I suggested a similar approach a few days back although at a much lower price - referral of the Brexit Bill to the ICJ.
The full payment idea is a dreadful outcome brought on by incompetence. But I suspect it would be much more likely to pass muster with the Tory party than any other option. It delivers Brexit without the potential for major disruption and allows them to kick out May straight afterwards. The Irish border will get resolved over time since it will remain open, and eventually a CETA deal will be agreed based on a technology solution that will largely already be running.
Much as I feel we should never have gotten here, I would accept this solution given where we are now (accept does not mean prefer!). But it needs to happen soon or there is not enough time to make the arrangements.
That option would not pass Parliament. The opposition would never vote for WTO terms and economic disaster and a potential break up of the Union and payments for the privilege and at least 40 Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than accept WTO terms plus payments, probably more.
It might not have to pass Parliament. If there is no treaty, the Government can just agree it with the EU themselves. If they can make a case that the Brexit bill is not a negotiated settlement but an existing legal requirement (eg what the remainers have always claimed!) then Parliament does not get a say. All the other matters would just be bilateral agreements that do not need Parliamentary approval.
I know you will dream about Parliament taking over, but in this scenario they could not - if this is the Government’s plan, their only route would be no confidence the Government. With the DUP onside, that can’t happen.
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
So much rage from such a small misunderstanding.
This is how wars start.
Leaving aside your ridiculous last sentence, I might suggest you consider the effects this will have.
The entire concept of running IC cars that pump filthy air and noise right into the faces of human beings in centres of population is utter madness when we the technology is available to abandon them. As Nigel says below, battery tech is improving rapidly, and forcing up demand will increase competition and reduce cost. In years to come, the IC ban will be perceived like the indoor smoking ban is now - uproar at the time; yet no one in their right mind would ever go back now.
An electric car came up beside me yesterday when I was walking the dog; I only noticed it when it was very close. Whatever they decide, they need to make some kind of noise. Isn't there research that suggested a duck quack is the least annoying yet most effective for such purpose?
The number of electric bicycles on the streets of Beijing a few years ago was quite worrying. Wouldn’t so bad if they were on the streets, actually, but they were frequently on the pavements!
The date of the ban in today’s story (and I presume the original) is for the sale of new cars, not getting the existing ones off the road. So all the market effects people expect on here are still some way off.
So much rage from such a small misunderstanding.
This is how wars start.
Leaving aside your ridiculous last sentence, I might suggest you consider the effects this will have.
The proposal is to ban sales. It will not have the effects you mention.
Sales of IC cats may already be very low in 14 years without advance notice of a ban.
Another bit of evidence for the notion that I am coming to that both leavers and remainers like myself who nonetheless regard EU membership as a legitimate matter for debate are massively out of touch with reality.
"But this isn't the worst possible way to get there."
It seems incongruous to what you said before, that's what I meant - I would have expected the sentence to be, "this *is* the worst possible way to get there", although I would consider that an exaggeration.
I fail to see a realistic worse way of getting there. I mean, government's *could* just ban all IC cars tomorrow, which would be a disaster. But that madness would soon fail. This is much more pernicious in its effects.
I do see this as a rich versus poor thing: people who are well-off can afford the luxury of an electric car. Most of us cannot, and betting that they will be able to in the future is a big gamble.
There may be network advantages to electric cars, e.g. as 'stores' of power. On the other hand, the network probably cannot handle the load millions of electric cars will place on it. Who pays for that upgrade?
I don't see how this is a rich versus poor thing. The cost over a car lifetime between buying an electric and a non-electric car is pretty similar, depending on the various assumptions. Let's make the incentives a bit more generous if needed. But we need to speed up the transition as far as possible.
As for your points on planning - I guess I have more faith in the market to provide Apparently 84% of UK drivers have access to off-street parking at home. If we can incentivise work places to provide this as an option also - then I think we are almost there.
For me our main weakness has consistently been a lack of clarity about what we actually wanted. I have had this situation with clients over the years and it is always problematic. Someone who doesn’t have a clear idea of what they want will always be pushed around because they cannot prioritise.
In this case we triggered article 50 without that clarity. Because we didn’t know what we wanted we let the other side fix the sequencing. That gave them control of the process. You can argue that article 50 itself gave them control. It is certainly designed that way but I don’t think that was inevitable. We could have maintained the position that we were not willing to discuss the leave agreement without at least discussing the future relationship in parallel.
Again, the lack of clarity about what we wanted meant that our politicians came under pressure to show “progress”. This is another elementary mistake. Progress in negotiations is getting towards where you want to go. If you are not getting there there is no progress and discussions about non key matters are just make work. It makes me despair that even this week we are repeating this mistake.
Perhaps the worst example of this desperate need for progress was the backstop agreement. It is horribly drafted. On any sensible view articles 49 and 50, helpfully quoted by Aaron, say different things. A government with a clear idea what they wanted would not have made this mistake. They would have been content to not make “progress” until they were getting what they wanted and they would have prepared for no agreement in a way that showed we meant it.
Finally this desire for “progress” has meant we have adopted the role of the supplicant. we make proposals, the EU says they do not address their concerns and we then run around trying to find a different proposal. It’s pathetic. And we are still doing it.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Diesels are already in freefall. I wanted to buy an E46 330d estate as my E36 M3 estate has gradually become worth serious money so I sold it. I could buy nice ones all day for two grand but wanted one with a blown turbo (so I can put a big turbo on it). I ended up getting two (one for parts) for just over 1200 quid!
Our next new car will probably be a Taycan. There is no way I would plough big money into an IC car now unless it was something collectible that's likely to appreciate.
A £60k car rather proves my point ...
You are lucky to be able to afford to choose to buy an all-electric car nowadays. For most people spending that much on a car is a dream.
We'll be leasing it through my wife's practice. She has some shifty Chabuddy G lookalike accountant who will make it tax efficient. I take your point though. Their needs to be more cheaper EVs to drive infrastructure growth before proscription of IC vehicles is feasible.
If you plan to keep a new car for over ten years then I would suggest that you don't have to worry all that much about depreciation?
I'm now seriously considering not buying a new car and buying a second-hand one - two or three years old.
If you buy a new car the first hundred yards you drive away from the garage will be the most expensive ground you ever cover - 20% VAT - gone! Given the uncertainty I wouldn't buy a new car. Alternatively look at leasing one - a friend recently got a 'no brainer' deal on a Mini....
That’s very good advice. Petrolheady car people tend to dislike the whole concept of leasing, but for people with busy lives who can’t be faffed with running old cars and/or not having a car and a giant bill when the bloody thing breaks down, full service leases are a great idea. If more people moved onto them - and gave up the idea of ‘owning’ a car - we could rapidly get inefficient old stock off the roads and advance much more rapidly to a cleaner national fleet.
Thats the way i've come to look at it. I'm effectively 'hiring' my new car for about £130pm which seems more than reasonable. Sure i have no 'asset' but then my car is something i use, not something i have or want forever.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
Another day nearer a GE. Poor old Tezza spinning so many plates - it's no wonder that even a person of her undoubted ability is struggling.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
Another day nearer a GE. Poor old Tezza spinning so many plates - it's no wonder that even a person of her undoubted ability is struggling.
I wouldn’t trust our current leadership to negotiate a round in my local.
Indeed so. And you know how much you are paying each month - if the blasted thing goes up the spout you aren’t landed with a £2k bill from nowhere. And you get to drive, efficient, clean new cars.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
Another day nearer a GE. Poor old Tezza spinning so many plates - it's no wonder that even a person of her undoubted ability is struggling.
She has to take a risk. She is utterly incapable of that.
F1: good news(ish). The weather forecast has worsened dramatically for first practice, so my daft, tiny stakes, enormous odds bets on backmarkers topping first practice has a slightly better chance of coming off.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so.
AIUI a possible extension was suggested and May said "that could be helpful" (well, better than saying" f*ck off you greasy wops!") - which if a couple of months would be consistent with what she said in Florence of 'around two years' (not the 19 months currently) for the transition.
But why let facts get in the way of hyperventilating hysteria?
The issue is how the EU/Ireland/UK have handled the 'Irish question' and stands in contrast to how the UK/Spain/Gibraltar have handled the Gibraltar one. The latter has a deal, the former risks bringing about exactly what it was supposed to avoid.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
I remarked on this yesterday. I see this as the EU making the concession. We are the ones asking for it.
Banning all diesel and petrol cars in 14 years is far too soon. I could get behind the 2040 date, as it was just about possible to get the car tech and charging infrastructure in place. Since a car can reasonably be expected to last 14 years, this new date will start affecting buying decisions today. And this is worse as it also includes hybrids.
And there are *no* replacements for the cars most plebs use, nor is there any reasonable charging infrastructure. The chances of this being true in 14 years is, frankly, unlikely.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Fuckwits. Stupid, arsing fuckwits.
(Guess who is about to buy their first new car?)
The Government could do so much more, so much more usefully, than try a banket decree.
- Give a 75% subsidy to all installations of charge points at home - Remove VAT from electric cars (or at least drop it to the 5% level until we leave the EU and announce we're going to zero-rate them after that) - Announce that all electric cars sold in the UK after a certain date have to be able to be readily charged by the CCS standard
I love the way Remoaners stick up for countries with shocking human rights records when it suits them. Good on the government, shame they cant do the same with Saudi Arabia.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
Another day nearer a GE. Poor old Tezza spinning so many plates - it's no wonder that even a person of her undoubted ability is struggling.
She has to take a risk. She is utterly incapable of that.
She has taken huge risks for close to two years - telling Remainers they were saboteurs, seeking to appease unappeasable Brexit zealots, triggering A50 without having an agreed exit strategy, drawing those absurd red lines, calling a GE - she just never realised. She has misread reality from the very start.
This is a good article. One point it makes which looks valid is that the Cabinet’s back up plan is not Remain, SM+CU etc, but a managed no deal. The thinking is that the UK will offer to pay the Brexit Bill in return for agreements to keep things on hould never have gotten here, I would accept this solution given where we are now (accept does not mean prefer!). But it needs to happen soon or there is not enough time to make the arrangements.
That option would not pass Parliament. The opposition would never vote for WTO terms and economic disaster and a potential break up of the Union and payments for the privilege and at least 40 Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than accept WTO terms plus payments, probably more.
It might not have to pass Parliament. If there is no treaty, the Government can just agree it with the EU themselves. If they can make a case that the Brexit bill is not a negotiated settlement but an existing legal requirement (eg what the remainers have always claimed!) then Parliament does not get a say. All the other matters would just be bilateral agreements that do not need Parliamentary approval.
I know you will dream about Parliament taking over, but in this scenario they could not - if this is the Government’s plan, their only route would be no confidence the Government. With the DUP onside, that can’t happen.
Check mate.
Paying for WTO terms is no legal requirement on any definition.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
Carl Mortished is a Canadian financial journalist and freelance consultant based in the U.K. With a career spanning investment banking, journalism and consulting for global companies, he was for many years a financial writer and columnist for The Times of London.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so.
AIUI a possible extension was suggested and May said "that could be helpful" (well, better than saying" f*ck off you greasy wops!") - which if a couple of months would be consistent with what she said in Florence of 'around two years' (not the 19 months currently) for the transition.
But why let facts get in the way of hyperventilating hysteria?
The issue is how the EU/Ireland/UK have handled the 'Irish question' and stands in contrast to how the UK/Spain/Gibraltar have handled the Gibraltar one. The latter has a deal, the former risks bringing about exactly what it was supposed to avoid.
The extension is for what? So we have longer to come to terms with the fact that the EU proposal based on the backstop is completely unacceptable to us and our proposals are apparently unacceptable to them. It is not even an agreement to agree, it is an agreement to disagree.
You are quite right that the outcome of that disagreement will be a much harder border than we are currently offering. The EU position is irrational. We must make it clear that those are the options. More time does not fix this.
Banning all diesel and petrol cars in 14 years is far too soon. I could get behind the 2040 date, as it was just about possible to get the car tech and charging infrastructure in place. Since a car can reasonably be expected to last 14 years, this new date will start affecting buying decisions today. And this is worse as it also includes hybrids.
And there are *no* replacements for the cars most plebs use, nor is there any reasonable charging infrastructure. The chances of this being true in 14 years is, frankly, unlikely.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Fuckwits. Stupid, arsing fuckwits.
(Guess who is about to buy their first new car?)
The Government could do so much more, so much more usefully, than try a banket decree.
- Give a 75% subsidy to all installations of charge points at home - Remove VAT from electric cars (or at least drop it to the 5% level until we leave the EU and announce we're going to zero-rate them after that) - Announce that all electric cars sold in the UK after a certain date have to be able to be readily charged by the CCS standard
... for example.
Indeed. That might even form the basis of a plan.
I'd also add all new houses to have suitable electric charging points at a safe location for the car - i.e. one charger per parking space. And the same for new or renovated public car parks. These should, of course, be one standard charger and not several.
But first, what are the aims? rather then reducing greenhouses gasses, cutting pollution might be seen as the main aim, in which case other strategies might be best.
Comments
There's another point: because of my gammy ankle, we need an automatic, and second-hand automatics are relatively rare, especially if you want something specific. In the past I've just bought second-hands fairly randomly: whatever is available in the class of car I require. The second-hand choice is limited. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably not bother with new.
As for the charging infrastructure, its coming. BP bought Chargemaster, Shell are partnered with Ionity. You will see rapid chargers appearing at all of their filling stations - they want to sell you coffee and cakes like they do everyone else
I agree politicians should have a better plan. Nevertheless there is no real downside for the buy-and-hold buyer right now (indeed buyers can probably get good deals on the back of the uncertainty).
In ten years time it might be a different matter.
When I retired we went from two cars to one; we organised our lives to manage..... I must admit if I haven’t got a reputation as a lift scrounger I deserve one, although I’m always willing to give them...... and in the 15 years since I retired I think I’ve used taxis about three times, apart from airport trips.
Someone on our street has a leaf. It is one of three cars they own; the others are sporty fuel-hogs. It's feels almost as if the car is a religious indulgence ...
Now the electric car might not suit your personal circumstances, but it seems to me it's a good option for many at present, although they may not realise it.
You didn't ask for advice, but I'd hold off on buying a new petrol car, electric tech will get better (new leaf is supposed to have 225 mile range).
I don't really understand what your last sentence means.
Another point to consider is we still can't know how well the performance of these new batteries holds up as they age. You can easily add several thousand more for a replacement.
Lisbon was critical. Not just because of Article 50, but because the electorate's trust was broken. Two parties out of three reneged on manifesto pledges.
I have a Leaf and I love it - range is an issue.. it’s the old one which does about 80 miles. But it’s a lovely drive and ideal for my needs (7-mile commute and sundry dad’s taxi duties). I’d probably want a reliable real-world range of 200-300 miles before I’d think about swapping our other one, which needs to do weekends away, dropping off kids at uni etc.
My charging point was provided free by Nissan and HMG (thank you all!), and I’m with a renewable supplier, so I’m not feeling that guilty about increased emissions from power stations (though I take that point in general).
On electricity - yeah it seems to be a big saving:
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/how-much-save-electric-car
There's also a chance at some point politicians will raise fuel tax.
Overview of all polls:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Thanks to the EU, the only deal she can bring back will be one that crosses all her red lines and involves an abject climbdown on NI, an issue which she said she would never accept. And, of course, one which has no trade deal.
Parliament will not pass a deal that attempts to limit British freedom of action permanently.
Much more likely the Tories will move against May now. I have long predicted she will be gone by Christmas and I am now even more convinced. But rather than the ERG it will be the Cabinet that gets her.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/divide-and-rule-how-the-eu-used-ireland-to-take-control-of-brexit/
Having said that, I think the EU is heavy handed here. I would put the no divergence or Irish Sea border in as a poison pill rather something you require the other party to sign up to. ie the treaties between the EU and the UK will lapse if the UK takes steps that require goods or people to be checked at the Irish land border.
Especially when it'll just change next year when they decide on something else.
Mrs J's old car is 12 years old, becoming unreliable, and she needs to do well over the average national mileage per year. We need something before the worst of winter strikes.
"electric tech will get better "
There are four factors: cost, capacity, speed of charging and safety. The first three of these, and preferably the fourth as well, need massive improvements, sometimes of an order of magnitude. That's a massive ask, especially when improvements are like squeezing a balloon.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/hyundai-kona-electric-gets-sub-£25000-price
Like all new markets, EVs are priced for those at the top end, but volumes are increasing quite rapidly, and prices will go down.
CDU -25%
SPD - 14%
Greens - 19%
AfD 16%
FDP - 11%
Linke - 9%
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/ard-deutschlandtrend-union-und-spd-fallen-auf-tiefstaende-15845786.html
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/16/tesla-batteries-have-90-capacity-after-160000-miles-may-last-for-500000-miles/
I would question those figures. 3p per mile seems very low to me. I notice their workings out appear to be back of an envelope.
I would also point out you are assuming no increase in electricity bills - yet mine went up 40% in July.
Have a good morning.
It seems incongruous to what you said before, that's what I meant - I would have expected the sentence to be, "this *is* the worst possible way to get there", although I would consider that an exaggeration.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/18/trump-greg-gianforte-assault-guardian-ben-jacobs
They say no hard border = splitting the U.K. vs SM+CU (with FoM)
They have probably overplayed their hand with the result they will end up with a hard border and a pissed off neighbour
If they had been more thoughtful a solution could have been found
On battery life/capacity (anecdote alert)... mine is nearly 4 years old and is showing no signs of reducing. I heard another anecdote of a cabbie (!) who’d done 120k miles and experiences the same.That’s good, because warnings that they might need replacing every three years were a big concern when I bought it, and the cost of Renault’s lease scheme.. reassuring if the shorter life was the case.. would have been astronomical in hindsight.
There was literally no point in a referendum on Lisbon once it had been signed.
Brown, on the other hand...
For the backstop - I think the original sin was her poor election performance. Had she maintained her majority, she'd have happily had a backstop with a border in the Irish sea and the DUP would have just had to lump it.
https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1053037765020012544
The (Corbynista) Labour Leader of Flintshire Council has an affair with his PA. They have sex in his office.
The Office of the Public Service Ombudsman (a Labour stooge appointment) decides she should lose her job.
He continues in his job.
https://tinyurl.com/y9n9yzn8
I have complained to the Public Service Ombudsman in Wales (Nick Bennett) before on other matters.
There’s no point.
Bennett was CEO of Community Housing Cymru, the umbrella organisation for housing associations, from July 2006 until July 2014. Bennett is also close to ‘Welsh’ Labour, having been in business with a former Labour minister.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1053183799960444928
Interesting contrast with that other "contentious" issue - Gibraltar - where left to themselves, the British, Spanish & Gibraltarians seem to have been able to sort things out for themselves (with the tougher nuts punted into the future) - and this over a territory with disputed sovereignty (which hasn't been resolved, neither, wisely, have they tried to).
My nephew is wanting to train as a garage mechanic, but will that exist in the future? Electric vehicles have such low maintenence requirements that may too be a dying industry.
My 10 year old Fiat is probably my last IC car, and good for a couple of years yet, but if I were replacing it soon would go for a plug in hybrid like the Ioniq.
I fail to see a realistic worse way of getting there. I mean, government's *could* just ban all IC cars tomorrow, which would be a disaster. But that madness would soon fail. This is much more pernicious in its effects.
I do see this as a rich versus poor thing: people who are well-off can afford the luxury of an electric car. Most of us cannot, and betting that they will be able to in the future is a big gamble.
Then there's the infrastructure. Picking a random suburban street in a random town: how will these people get chargers?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5594637,-1.7899097,3a,75y,317.74h,81.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4rfGg3TLvqhIlbum24YX4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And multiply that cost and inconvenience by thousands of other streets.
There may be network advantages to electric cars, e.g. as 'stores' of power. On the other hand, the network probably cannot handle the load millions of electric cars will place on it. Who pays for that upgrade?
They are the ones with an aim - which is to change and shape society into what they want it to be, Democracy be b*ggered. The ends will justify the means because they know they are right.
Not all, politicians are in that group, some have more noble aims, such as representing their electors' views, but these are the ones who remain ineffectual, languishing on the back benches. Thatcher and Brown are good examples of the first group. So, in their own way are Major, Cameron, Blair and Miliband.
Why should Brown allow a vote on Europe when he knows he's right?. Why should Blair heed the public when he knows he's right on Iraq?. And Thatcher was TINA.
Political parties are designed to encourage this sort of leader.
That I cannot understand, as they're a good middle ground. Set regulations for engine efficiency coupled with battery range, and you'd get many of the advantages of electrics and IC - especially in cities.
Seriously, it wasn't even a political discussion where you might expect frayed tempers, what was the point of being insulting? I hope it gave a nice feeling of self satisfaction at least.
I suggested a similar approach a few days back although at a much lower price - referral of the Brexit Bill to the ICJ.
The full payment idea is a dreadful outcome brought on by incompetence. But I suspect it would be much more likely to pass muster with the Tory party than any other option. It delivers Brexit without the potential for major disruption and allows them to kick out May straight afterwards. The Irish border will get resolved over time since it will remain open, and eventually a CETA deal will be agreed based on a technology solution that will largely already be running.
Much as I feel we should never have gotten here, I would accept this solution given where we are now (accept does not mean prefer!). But it needs to happen soon or there is not enough time to make the arrangements.
He is working to thwart Remain by making its supporters look like offensive boors.
https://twitter.com/CMorti/status/746277656723861505
https://twitter.com/CMorti/status/746303565229076481
He now writes for a London Freesheet.
Or a Fiesta automatic.
I know you will dream about Parliament taking over, but in this scenario they could not - if this is the Government’s plan, their only route would be no confidence the Government. With the DUP onside, that can’t happen.
Check mate.
This is how wars start.
Tough regulations will drive the tech forward.
The entire concept of running IC cars that pump filthy air and noise right into the faces of human beings in centres of population is utter madness when we the technology is available to abandon them. As Nigel says below, battery tech is improving rapidly, and forcing up demand will increase competition and reduce cost. In years to come, the IC ban will be perceived like the indoor smoking ban is now - uproar at the time; yet no one in their right mind would ever go back now.
Ban them.
Sales of IC cats may already be very low in 14 years without advance notice of a ban.
As for your points on planning - I guess I have more faith in the market to provide
Apparently 84% of UK drivers have access to off-street parking at home. If we can incentivise work places to provide this as an option also - then I think we are almost there.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-industry-news/2018/01/26/pwc-charging-ahead-report-outlines-ev-uptake-pinch-points
For me our main weakness has consistently been a lack of clarity about what we actually wanted. I have had this situation with clients over the years and it is always problematic. Someone who doesn’t have a clear idea of what they want will always be pushed around because they cannot prioritise.
In this case we triggered article 50 without that clarity. Because we didn’t know what we wanted we let the other side fix the sequencing. That gave them control of the process. You can argue that article 50 itself gave them control. It is certainly designed that way but I don’t think that was inevitable. We could have maintained the position that we were not willing to discuss the leave agreement without at least discussing the future relationship in parallel.
Again, the lack of clarity about what we wanted meant that our politicians came under pressure to show “progress”. This is another elementary mistake. Progress in negotiations is getting towards where you want to go. If you are not getting there there is no progress and discussions about non key matters are just make work. It makes me despair that even this week we are repeating this mistake.
Perhaps the worst example of this desperate need for progress was the backstop agreement. It is horribly drafted. On any sensible view articles 49 and 50, helpfully quoted by Aaron, say different things. A government with a clear idea what they wanted would not have made this mistake. They would have been content to not make “progress” until they were getting what they wanted and they would have prepared for no agreement in a way that showed we meant it.
Finally this desire for “progress” has meant we have adopted the role of the supplicant. we make proposals, the EU says they do not address their concerns and we then run around trying to find a different proposal. It’s pathetic. And we are still doing it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/1053173909326041088
Have I got this correct?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/18/theresa-mays-brexit-shambles-desperate-denials-broken-promises/
I am beginning to wonder whether anyone, literally anyone, would be better than May now.
Indeed so. And you know how much you are paying each month - if the blasted thing goes up the spout you aren’t landed with a £2k bill from nowhere. And you get to drive, efficient, clean new cars.
But why let facts get in the way of hyperventilating hysteria?
The issue is how the EU/Ireland/UK have handled the 'Irish question' and stands in contrast to how the UK/Spain/Gibraltar have handled the Gibraltar one. The latter has a deal, the former risks bringing about exactly what it was supposed to avoid.
https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1052937585046228994?s=21
I see this as the EU making the concession. We are the ones asking for it.
The problem is Brexit, not May
- Give a 75% subsidy to all installations of charge points at home
- Remove VAT from electric cars (or at least drop it to the 5% level until we leave the EU and announce we're going to zero-rate them after that)
- Announce that all electric cars sold in the UK after a certain date have to be able to be readily charged by the CCS standard
... for example.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/carl-mortished-by-keeping-museums-free-we-risk-cheapening-our-culture-a3921601.html
You are quite right that the outcome of that disagreement will be a much harder border than we are currently offering. The EU position is irrational. We must make it clear that those are the options. More time does not fix this.
Moldova was joined by the U.S., New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and Israel
I'd also add all new houses to have suitable electric charging points at a safe location for the car - i.e. one charger per parking space. And the same for new or renovated public car parks. These should, of course, be one standard charger and not several.
But first, what are the aims? rather then reducing greenhouses gasses, cutting pollution might be seen as the main aim, in which case other strategies might be best.