I think I agree with Powell if he is saying that a patriot fights for his country rather than the political philosophy that is fashionable in that country at the time
In reality very few people are going to risk their life or kill anyone for country or values. The only reliable motivation for forcing people into such behaviour is the bond they feel toward their comrades. The armed forces know this only too well hence the overwhelming emphasis in training and indoctrination of suppressing the individual and the elevation of the unit and its shared objective.
Obviously Powell was arguing from the stance of someone who had risked his life, and probably killed someone, for country. But I think the definition is still valid if the fighting were verbal or even on social media!
Actually i think that isn't true. As i understand it he never experienced combat action, and to some extent it gave him a sense of shame (that effectively his brain ensured that he spent the war engaged in tasks that kept him away from direct action).
I'm sure anyone who has thought about war fighting (to use the ghastly Americanism) has wondered about whether they'd pass the test of combat, but of course you'll never know if you don't sit the test. I'd guess that not knowing ate away at Powell.
The attitude of an undoubted war fighter, Orde Wingate, to Powell is interesting.
'Orde Wingate, also involved in planning that operation, had taken such a dislike to Powell that he asked a colleague to restrain him if he was tempted to "beat his brains in"'
I love my country. Genuinely. I recognise it isn't perfect; I recognise that there us a lot to admire and sometimes try to emulate in other countries, and I recognise that people from other countries may feel just as strongly about their home as I do about mine. But nevertheless I love my country, and never more so than when returning from abroad. Coming in through the clouds to see the Pennines and suburbs of South Manchester, or seeing the douth coast of England come into view from the ferry: this country makes me happy like no other could. It is the landscape, the people, the architecture, the language, the culture.
I must admit, I find it mildly odd when I meet someone who doesn't love their country, whichever country that is.
That is too eloquent not be sincere.
BUT how would you react to an accusation of mislabeling comfort in the familiar as love?
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
The problem with the Scottish regional polling was even worse with the constituency specific polling. Of the 47 seat specific polls on the Wikipedia opinion poll webpage, 12 got the winner completely wrong (including, for example, all three polls in Putney). Particularly poor were the eight LibDem/Survation polls which were published, which wrongly predicted the outcome in Cambridge, South Cambs, SE Cambs, Finchley & Golders Green and Portsmouth South. Many included vote shares which were dramatically outside the relevant margins of error.
These seat-specific polls often generated a great deal of press coverage. No doubt they influenced some tactical voting by voters as well as targeting etc. by the parties. In general, they overstated LibDem/Ind support and understated both Con and Lab support. For example, the three polls in Kensington showed a Con/Lab lead of 4% and 10% and a Con/LD lead of just 3%. As we know, it was effectively a Con/Lab dead heat on the night, with the LD a distant third place.
Has anyone analysed the final YouGov MRP study by seat, against the outcome?
The Yougov MRP was pretty accurate, the first had a Tory majority of 68 and it ended up at 80, though it had Kensington going Labour and Dagenham and Rainham going Tory in its final poll but it did correctly predict Putney would go Labour
In the end, London was pretty much anti-climactic - Tories lost two seats, but gained two seats. One gain from LD, one loss to LD. One loss to Labour, one gain from Labour.
Yet another reason to leave the EU - today's introduction of EU taxes fines for car manufacturers who don't sell enough electric cars.
Right now, none of them do, and they don't have the capacity to do so either. The new rulest will just make new, more efficient, cars more expensive - and the EU coffers richer.
Good enough for them , these big businesses need to be shown they are not the be all and end all.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
Actually it's bugger all to do with cars, it's just a way of raising funds directly for the EU, in areas where they're not allowed to levy taxes. Co-incidentally, it's estimated that it will raise about as much for the EU as the UK contribution annually.
I love my country. Genuinely. I recognise it isn't perfect; I recognise that there us a lot to admire and sometimes try to emulate in other countries, and I recognise that people from other countries may feel just as strongly about their home as I do about mine. But nevertheless I love my country, and never more so than when returning from abroad. Coming in through the clouds to see the Pennines and suburbs of South Manchester, or seeing the douth coast of England come into view from the ferry: this country makes me happy like no other could. It is the landscape, the people, the architecture, the language, the culture.
I must admit, I find it mildly odd when I meet someone who doesn't love their country, whichever country that is.
I'd be interested to see a map of where people agree with the phrase 'I love my country'. Will it tally with rich/poor divides, will it tally with the Tees-Exe line, will it be an urban/rural split? Will it actually look a lot like the 2019 electoral map?
I don't love my country. I find the whole concept of loving a political and cultural entity to be very strange. I do appreciate my country a great deal. I consider myself extremely fortunate to live here and would not, by choice, live anywhere else on Earth. There are many individual elements I love about my country including its landscape, its climate and its customs. But I do not love the entity itself.
For me a country is the ultimate expression of a desire for self determination by people with a shared cultural and linguistic heritage. What matters is that it is a recognisable entity within which the people can make their own laws and customs to suit their own views and beliefs. But whilst I consider that something to be cherished and defended through any means necessary that does not make me love it. Love in the form we are talking about here is reserved, in my mind, for family and friends, and the ever loyal pet dog.
To hark back to the Thatcher/Powell exchange, I believe Thatcher was correct. It is shared beliefs and freedoms which are what are worth defending, not the trappings of statehood. If my country no longer defends those beliefs and freedoms then it is no longer worthy of defence.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
Yet another reason to leave the EU - today's introduction of EU taxes fines for car manufacturers who don't sell enough electric cars.
Right now, none of them do, and they don't have the capacity to do so either. The new rulest will just make new, more efficient, cars more expensive - and the EU coffers richer.
I have no qualms with this tax actually. Only less efficient cars are being taxed with this and the less efficient they are the more they get taxed. The newest most efficient cars will be untaxed. This will make a more efficient car relatively cheaper to purchase in the future than a less efficient one.
Pollution is a negative externality and putting taxes on negative externalities makes sense. Once we leave the EU and this tax doesn't apply to us then the Chancellor should announce it in the budget with the revenues going to our Treasury rather than the EUs.
I'd have no qualms with those still purchasing inefficient new cars in 2020 being taxed more and those funds going to fund the roads or NHS rather than some EU white elephant.
In religious studies, it was said there are six Greek words for love. Didn't go through them all, but there was eros (frisky time love), philadelphia (love of one's city), agape (sacrificial love), and love of one's brother, the name of which I forget.
It is interesting that English, which has a pretty large number of words in it, has just the one.
philadelphia = brotherly love
No, that's storge. Philia means 'friendship (platonic)' and 'philadelphia' means 'place where affection is.'
The original Greek is slightly different from the modern psychological categorisations.
Not to mention ‘Greek love’ meaning something different again...
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
Is this your strategy for making sure Yes wins IndyRef2?
Mate: Wendy Alexander had it right (this may be the only thing she had right) 'Bring it on' should be the only response - you strike early. Give the SNP IndyRef2 this coming Spring before any Brexit chaos hits.
It's not early any more and hasn't been for many years. Everyone is comfy - so comfy that their ex-leader is up on attempted rape charges in a few months, presumably against civil servants with nothing to gain and everything to lose, and no-one bats an eyelid as he tries to manipulate his way out. It's literally over.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
It's to force down the prices and drive uptake of electric/PHEV cars and it works. Porsche have to produce the Taycan and price it keenly (relative to the billions it cost to develop) in order to bring down their fleet wide CO2/km. Ditto JLR and the RR Sport Hybrid which wouldn't exist or cost twice as much without the EU regs.
The net effect for Brexitstan will be more expensive low emission vehicles as the OEMs have no need to offset UK sales of high emission products to bring their average down.
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
You know little if you think they would coalesce under Tories
We'll see. Devolution was supposed to kill nationalism stone dead, but it turns out main oppositions tend to eventually become largest party. Lets see what a manufactured existential threat to the Union does for the Unionists.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
It's to force down the prices and drive uptake of electric/PHEV cars and it works. Porsche have to produce the Taycan and price it keenly (relative to the billions it cost to develop) in order to bring down their fleet wide CO2/km. Ditto JLR and the RR Sport Hybrid which wouldn't exist or cost twice as much without the EU regs.
The net effect for Brexitstan will be more expensive low emission vehicles as the OEMs have no need to offset UK sales of high emission products to bring their average down.
Agreed. I think it an excellent policy as it will greatly accelerate the development of mass manufacturing of EVs - which will rapidly drive down production costs. Within perhaps three to four years the policy will render itself unnecessary as EVs will be significantly cheaper to produce than their direct ICE equivalents.
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
Unless something major changes, I expect any subsequent referendum to go for independence, probably by quite a large margin. Johnson is absolutely not the man that wins Scottish hearts and minds. (Politics made a rare entry into conversation at my office the other day on the topic of Johnson. No-one had a good word for him in a business where conservatives should expect find supporters). English nationalism and English ascendancy don't play well in Scotland, unsurprisingly. I can't see other unionist politicians jumping in to be part of Johnson's campaign.
Much more likely, Johnson will simply ignore Scotland, including any call for a constitutional settlement, as Thatcher did previously. Unlike Thatcher he has very few Scottish seats to lose.
Johnson has still won the second highest Scottish Tory voteshare and number of seats since 1992. In fact the 25.1% the Tories got in Scotland on December 12th was higher than the 24.7% Thatcher's Tories got in Scotland in 1987 or the 24% Heath's Tories got in Scotland in October 1974
Bit like saying I only got shot in the chest twice, it could have been three
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
The net effect for Brexitstan will be more expensive low emission vehicles as the OEMs have no need to offset UK sales of high emission products to bring their average down.
And of course Brexit makes it considerably less likely they will be manufactured here.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
Richard Osman and Alexander Armstrong will tell you that the UK is a sovereign state.
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
Unless something major changes, I expect any subsequent referendum to go for independence, probably by quite a large margin. Johnson is absolutely not the man that wins Scottish hearts and minds. (Politics made a rare entry into conversation at my office the other day on the topic of Johnson. No-one had a good word for him in a business where conservatives should expect find supporters). English nationalism and English ascendancy don't play well in Scotland, unsurprisingly. I can't see other unionist politicians jumping in to be part of Johnson's campaign.
Much more likely, Johnson will simply ignore Scotland, including any call for a constitutional settlement, as Thatcher did previously. Unlike Thatcher he has very few Scottish seats to lose.
Johnson has still won the second highest Scottish Tory voteshare and number of seats since 1992. In fact the 25.1% the Tories got in Scotland on December 12th was higher than the 24.7% Thatcher's Tories got in Scotland in 1987 or the 24% Heath's Tories got in Scotland in October 1974
Bit like saying I only got shot in the chest twice, it could have been three
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
Is this your strategy for making sure Yes wins IndyRef2?
Mate: Wendy Alexander had it right (this may be the only thing she had right) 'Bring it on' should be the only response - you strike early. Give the SNP IndyRef2 this coming Spring before any Brexit chaos hits.
It's not early any more and hasn't been for many years. Everyone is comfy - so comfy that their ex-leader is up on attempted rape charges in a few months, presumably against civil servants with nothing to gain and everything to lose, and no-one bats an eyelid as he tries to manipulate his way out. It's literally over.
LOL< you absolute numpty, what rock did you crawl out from. Be good when holidays are over and you are back at primary school.
I love my country. Genuinely. I recognise it isn't perfect; I recognise that there us a lot to admire and sometimes try to emulate in other countries, and I recognise that people from other countries may feel just as strongly about their home as I do about mine. But nevertheless I love my country, and never more so than when returning from abroad. Coming in through the clouds to see the Pennines and suburbs of South Manchester, or seeing the douth coast of England come into view from the ferry: this country makes me happy like no other could. It is the landscape, the people, the architecture, the language, the culture.
I must admit, I find it mildly odd when I meet someone who doesn't love their country, whichever country that is.
I'd be interested to see a map of where people agree with the phrase 'I love my country'. Will it tally with rich/poor divides, will it tally with the Tees-Exe line, will it be an urban/rural split? Will it actually look a lot like the 2019 electoral map?
I don't love my country. I find the whole concept of loving a political and cultural entity to be very strange. I do appreciate my country a great deal. I consider myself extremely fortunate to live here and would not, by choice, live anywhere else on Earth. There are many individual elements I love about my country including its landscape, its climate and its customs. But I do not love the entity itself.
For me a country is the ultimate expression of a desire for self determination by people with a shared cultural and linguistic heritage. What matters is that it is a recognisable entity within which the people can make their own laws and customs to suit their own views and beliefs. But whilst I consider that something to be cherished and defended through any means necessary that does not make me love it. Love in the form we are talking about here is reserved, in my mind, for family and friends, and the ever loyal pet dog.
To hark back to the Thatcher/Powell exchange, I believe Thatcher was correct. It is shared beliefs and freedoms which are what are worth defending, not the trappings of statehood. If my country no longer defends those beliefs and freedoms then it is no longer worthy of defence.
Not for the first time I find myself agreeing with you, Richard.
I love my country. Genuinely. I recognise it isn't perfect; I recognise that there us a lot to admire and sometimes try to emulate in other countries, and I recognise that people from other countries may feel just as strongly about their home as I do about mine. But nevertheless I love my country, and never more so than when returning from abroad. Coming in through the clouds to see the Pennines and suburbs of South Manchester, or seeing the douth coast of England come into view from the ferry: this country makes me happy like no other could. It is the landscape, the people, the architecture, the language, the culture.
I must admit, I find it mildly odd when I meet someone who doesn't love their country, whichever country that is.
That is too eloquent not be sincere.
BUT how would you react to an accusation of mislabeling comfort in the familiar as love?
I'm sure there's a bit of that, but we risk wandering into semantics and philosophy - what is love? Difficult to define even between humans.
I'm attracted to President Heinemann's austere "I do not love my country. I love my wife." but that was in the postwar German context, where love of country had turned into something much worse - I fear the growth of nationalism that takes the form of believing in superiority to and greater rights than other countries. Cookie's straightforward affection and happiness in Britain is very natural, and threatens nobody.
Those of us with multi-country backgrounds have similar but more complicated feelings. I feel Cookie's sense of comfort and familiairity in Denmark, where I grew up, more than Godalming, which is just a place I happen to live in at the moment. But I'm more at home with British culture than Danish culture, because I wasn't much into culture when I was growing up. Given Tebbit's test, if there was a sports match between England and Denmark, I'd be pretty neutral. I don't think that makes me a bad or dangerous person (though it'd be awkward if we went to war with Denmark), any more than Cookie - we're just reflecting our individual stories.
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
You know little if you think they would coalesce under Tories
We'll see. Devolution was supposed to kill nationalism stone dead, but it turns out main oppositions tend to eventually become largest party. Lets see what a manufactured existential threat to the Union does for the Unionists.
Yet another reason to leave the EU - today's introduction of EU taxes fines for car manufacturers who don't sell enough electric cars.
Right now, none of them do, and they don't have the capacity to do so either. The new rulest will just make new, more efficient, cars more expensive - and the EU coffers richer.
Good enough for them , these big businesses need to be shown they are not the be all and end all.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
Actually it's bugger all to do with cars, it's just a way of raising funds directly for the EU, in areas where they're not allowed to levy taxes. Co-incidentally, it's estimated that it will raise about as much for the EU as the UK contribution annually.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
It's to force down the prices and drive uptake of electric/PHEV cars and it works. Porsche have to produce the Taycan and price it keenly (relative to the billions it cost to develop) in order to bring down their fleet wide CO2/km. Ditto JLR and the RR Sport Hybrid which wouldn't exist or cost twice as much without the EU regs.
The net effect for Brexitstan will be more expensive low emission vehicles as the OEMs have no need to offset UK sales of high emission products to bring their average down.
I expect and hope the Treasury would mirror these taxes.
Incidentally since electric vehicle sales can offset the taxes of more polluting vehicles it gives a massive incentive to sell electric vehicles for cheaper than more polluting older designs.
A modern electric vehicles emits approximately 33g per km I believe. If I understand this correctly then that means 62 * £81 = £5,022 of tax rebate essentially for every electric vehicle sold. That rebate can in part or whole be passed on to the consumer, while the tax increase on polluting vehicles can in part or whole be passed on to the consumer too.
Yet another reason to leave the EU - today's introduction of EU taxes fines for car manufacturers who don't sell enough electric cars.
Right now, none of them do, and they don't have the capacity to do so either. The new rulest will just make new, more efficient, cars more expensive - and the EU coffers richer.
Good enough for them , these big businesses need to be shown they are not the be all and end all.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
Actually it's bugger all to do with cars, it's just a way of raising funds directly for the EU, in areas where they're not allowed to levy taxes. Co-incidentally, it's estimated that it will raise about as much for the EU as the UK contribution annually.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
England did used to mean Britain, at least until the Scots started complaining, and as our Welsh pb-ers will remind us, until recently Cardiff was not the capital of Wales because Wales did not have a capital.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
People pay for fuel as and when they need it and it is an appropriate tax but when people buy a car they look at the ticket price of the car and what they can afford at that time. One issue with electric vehicles (and hybrids) is that they're more expensive up from even if they're cheaper to run long term - while more polluting vehicles can be cheaper up front even if they're more expensive long term.
This is a sensible proposal as it will up front make cars better reflect their true cost. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper up front while heavily polluting vehicles can be more expensive up front.
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
Is this your strategy for making sure Yes wins IndyRef2?
Mate: Wendy Alexander had it right (this may be the only thing she had right) 'Bring it on' should be the only response - you strike early. Give the SNP IndyRef2 this coming Spring before any Brexit chaos hits.
It's not early any more and hasn't been for many years. Everyone is comfy - so comfy that their ex-leader is up on attempted rape charges in a few months, presumably against civil servants with nothing to gain and everything to lose, and no-one bats an eyelid as he tries to manipulate his way out. It's literally over.
LOL< you absolute numpty, what rock did you crawl out from. Be good when holidays are over and you are back at primary school.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
England did used to mean Britain, at least until the Scots started complaining, and as our Welsh pb-ers will remind us, until recently Cardiff was not the capital of Wales because Wales did not have a capital.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
Hitler always referred to the UK as "England", just saying.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
People pay for fuel as and when they need it and it is an appropriate tax but when people buy a car they look at the ticket price of the car and what they can afford at that time. One issue with electric vehicles (and hybrids) is that they're more expensive up from even if they're cheaper to run long term - while more polluting vehicles can be cheaper up front even if they're more expensive long term.
This is a sensible proposal as it will up front make cars better reflect their true cost. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper up front while heavily polluting vehicles can be more expensive up front.
The heavily polluting cars will be the second hand ones that I assume won’t attract this charge, or the older cars that won’t be replaced as often if the price of new cars goes up too much.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
People pay for fuel as and when they need it and it is an appropriate tax but when people buy a car they look at the ticket price of the car and what they can afford at that time. One issue with electric vehicles (and hybrids) is that they're more expensive up from even if they're cheaper to run long term - while more polluting vehicles can be cheaper up front even if they're more expensive long term.
This is a sensible proposal as it will up front make cars better reflect their true cost. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper up front while heavily polluting vehicles can be more expensive up front.
The heavily polluting cars will be the second hand ones that I assume won’t attract this charge, or the older cars that won’t be replaced as often if the price of new cars goes up too much.
Perhaps we should go back to horses and learn how to cope with the shit problem in the cities.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
People pay for fuel as and when they need it and it is an appropriate tax but when people buy a car they look at the ticket price of the car and what they can afford at that time. One issue with electric vehicles (and hybrids) is that they're more expensive up from even if they're cheaper to run long term - while more polluting vehicles can be cheaper up front even if they're more expensive long term.
This is a sensible proposal as it will up front make cars better reflect their true cost. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper up front while heavily polluting vehicles can be more expensive up front.
The heavily polluting cars will be the second hand ones that I assume won’t attract this charge, or the older cars that won’t be replaced as often if the price of new cars goes up too much.
Perhaps we should go back to horses and learn how to cope with the shit problem in the cities.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
England did used to mean Britain, at least until the Scots started complaining, and as our Welsh pb-ers will remind us, until recently Cardiff was not the capital of Wales because Wales did not have a capital.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
Hitler always referred to the UK as "England", just saying.
Yet another reason to leave the EU - today's introduction of EU taxes fines for car manufacturers who don't sell enough electric cars.
Right now, none of them do, and they don't have the capacity to do so either. The new rulest will just make new, more efficient, cars more expensive - and the EU coffers richer.
Good enough for them , these big businesses need to be shown they are not the be all and end all.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
Actually it's bugger all to do with cars, it's just a way of raising funds directly for the EU, in areas where they're not allowed to levy taxes. Co-incidentally, it's estimated that it will raise about as much for the EU as the UK contribution annually.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
Because that's regressive and hits poorer people harder. The EU scheme places the costs on those that can better afford it - purchasers of new cars. The scheme is cleverly designed and very effective.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
England did used to mean Britain, at least until the Scots started complaining, and as our Welsh pb-ers will remind us, until recently Cardiff was not the capital of Wales because Wales did not have a capital.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
People pay for fuel as and when they need it and it is an appropriate tax but when people buy a car they look at the ticket price of the car and what they can afford at that time. One issue with electric vehicles (and hybrids) is that they're more expensive up from even if they're cheaper to run long term - while more polluting vehicles can be cheaper up front even if they're more expensive long term.
This is a sensible proposal as it will up front make cars better reflect their true cost. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper up front while heavily polluting vehicles can be more expensive up front.
The heavily polluting cars will be the second hand ones that I assume won’t attract this charge, or the older cars that won’t be replaced as often if the price of new cars goes up too much.
Perhaps we should go back to horses and learn how to cope with the shit problem in the cities.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
England did used to mean Britain, at least until the Scots started complaining, and as our Welsh pb-ers will remind us, until recently Cardiff was not the capital of Wales because Wales did not have a capital.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
Hitler always referred to the UK as "England", just saying.
The smartest thing the Conservatives could do re: hashtag Indyref2 would be to deny it for a while, whip up resentment, let the SNP get comfy thinking they can get a lot of lovely grievance that keeps their seats warm, and then force it on them. At some point the Unionists will have to coalesce under one party and a nice Independence campaign that contains a couple of polls with 10-point "Yes" leads would be just the sort of thing. It's unlikely Labour would be the party to capitalise as the trauma of the previous campaign plus the terrible mess they're in nationally due to their previous joke of a leader, and their forthcoming joke of a leader, would lead to some sort of collective nervous breakdown.
Also it would be fun. Imagine if SeanT were still around and the ten-point "Yes" poll rolled in!
Is this your strategy for making sure Yes wins IndyRef2?
Mate: Wendy Alexander had it right (this may be the only thing she had right) 'Bring it on' should be the only response - you strike early. Give the SNP IndyRef2 this coming Spring before any Brexit chaos hits.
It's not early any more and hasn't been for many years. Everyone is comfy - so comfy that their ex-leader is up on attempted rape charges in a few months, presumably against civil servants with nothing to gain and everything to lose, and no-one bats an eyelid as he tries to manipulate his way out. It's literally over.
LOL< you absolute numpty, what rock did you crawl out from. Be good when holidays are over and you are back at primary school.
Bit early, but "Happy Hogmanay" Malcolm
Cheers , a Dry one for me this year and likely be in bed before it way things are going. Happy New Year to you and your family when it comes.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
England did used to mean Britain, at least until the Scots started complaining, and as our Welsh pb-ers will remind us, until recently Cardiff was not the capital of Wales because Wales did not have a capital.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
Hitler always referred to the UK as "England", just saying.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
People pay for fuel as and when they need it and it is an appropriate tax but when people buy a car they look at the ticket price of the car and what they can afford at that time. One issue with electric vehicles (and hybrids) is that they're more expensive up from even if they're cheaper to run long term - while more polluting vehicles can be cheaper up front even if they're more expensive long term.
This is a sensible proposal as it will up front make cars better reflect their true cost. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper up front while heavily polluting vehicles can be more expensive up front.
The heavily polluting cars will be the second hand ones that I assume won’t attract this charge, or the older cars that won’t be replaced as often if the price of new cars goes up too much.
If manufacturers pass on the carbon offset tax rebate that clean vehicles get (which makes sense for them to do) then their prices may go down not up!
Literally just watching this guy on Triggernometry on Youtube. He seems to actually be talking sense, the sort of person Labour needs to but won't listen to I suspect.
Yet another reason to leave the EU - today's introduction of EU taxes fines for car manufacturers who don't sell enough electric cars.
Right now, none of them do, and they don't have the capacity to do so either. The new rulest will just make new, more efficient, cars more expensive - and the EU coffers richer.
Good enough for them , these big businesses need to be shown they are not the be all and end all.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
Actually it's bugger all to do with cars, it's just a way of raising funds directly for the EU, in areas where they're not allowed to levy taxes. Co-incidentally, it's estimated that it will raise about as much for the EU as the UK contribution annually.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
...
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
Because that's regressive and hits poorer people harder. The EU scheme places the costs on those that can better afford it - purchasers of new cars. The scheme is cleverly designed and very effective.
I predict that VW will redefine an "electric car" as one that emits a detectable magnetic field when placed on a rolling road, and mysteriously escape from having to pay any fines.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
It's to force down the prices and drive uptake of electric/PHEV cars and it works. Porsche have to produce the Taycan and price it keenly (relative to the billions it cost to develop) in order to bring down their fleet wide CO2/km. Ditto JLR and the RR Sport Hybrid which wouldn't exist or cost twice as much without the EU regs.
The net effect for Brexitstan will be more expensive low emission vehicles as the OEMs have no need to offset UK sales of high emission products to bring their average down.
It incentivises manufacturers to market EVs as one cheap EV can offset two high margin gas guzzlers,or perhaps five family ICE cars.
There probably won't be much of UK car industry left after the current production cycle ends, sadly.
It's real. Even if its nonsense it's real, the loyalty to and love of the tribe scaled up. Its even eclipsed religion in the last several centuries in some ways which is pretty impressive and unusual.
But it's nonsense from the viewpoint of a progressive. A progressive will - IMO correctly - view "love of country" as a mental aberration. Something to be treated rather than pandered to.
EDIT: By treated I mean argued against - not drugs and hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would advocate going that far.
I’m more persuaded that there is something wired wrong if you don’t have a love for your own nation.
"Nation", "country" and "sovereign state" mean subtly different things.
"By 'country' we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right." - Richard Osman.
So "England", "Wales", "Scotland" are not countries? Or did I miss Scotland's seat in the UN?
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
England did used to mean Britain, at least until the Scots started complaining, and as our Welsh pb-ers will remind us, until recently Cardiff was not the capital of Wales because Wales did not have a capital.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
Only to wan**rs and xenophobes, bit like now.
The poster child is the Oxford History of England which actually covers the whole British Isles.
Why over complicate things though? Put all the cost on the fuel. After all, a high emission car that stays in the garage because the trip is cheaper by train is better than a lower emission car doing the trip.
Because that's regressive and hits poorer people harder. The EU scheme places the costs on those that can better afford it - purchasers of new cars. The scheme is cleverly designed and very effective.
That's a good point too!
Plus its an entirely voluntary tax that its possible to avoid. Currently purchasers of new cars have to pay a lot for clean vehicles and purchasers of second hand cars have as a result a lot more dirty cars to choose from when new cars get sold on.
This "tax" is entirely voluntary and could raise zero very quickly. Essentially purchasers of new Electric Vehicles will get a subsidy of up to £5000 fully funded those paying thousands more for petrol and diesel vehicles.
The market will do what it does and very quickly we will reach equilibrium with more and cheaper clean vehicles on the road which will ultimately filter through to the second hand market too.
I'm not familiar with that drama but surely by definition the context of any words he used is how he used them?
The origin of a phrase may be different to the context it is used in.
Let me correct that to 'original context' then.
Are phrases such as 'Keep England White' or the 'sinister confederacy' of 'International Jews' now acceptable once removed form their original context?
I'm not familiar with that drama but surely by definition the context of any words he used is how he used them?
The origin of a phrase may be different to the context it is used in.
Let me correct that to 'original context' then.
Are phrases such as 'Keep England White' or the 'sinister confederacy' of 'International Jews' now acceptable once removed form their original context?
Well those phrases are offensive in any context as far as I can see. I don't see any context where they will be used without being unacceptable but if there's a context where they're entirely innocent then so be it.
If he genuinely didn't know the context, doesn't that make what he said independent from it?
If he genuinely didn't know the context and wants to venture into political commentary, it makes him an ignorant fuckwit (as I more or less stated).
I'd say it is quite an obscure phrase & that a humongous majority of people would have no idea of it's original context, but we all need someone to hate on
If he genuinely didn't know the context, doesn't that make what he said independent from it?
If he genuinely didn't know the context and wants to venture into political commentary, it makes him an ignorant fuckwit (as I more or less stated).
I'd say it is quite an obscure phrase & that a humongous majority of people would have no idea of it's original context, but we all need someone to hate on
It's the woke liberals and the rootless cosmopolitans for wee Pauly it would appear.
I think Starmer honestly should be considered favourite now based on that article. I expected to get something cliché-ridden and vacuous from Wrong-Dailey, but it's even worse than I thought. Sure, the cult might well still vote for her once Momentum endorse her, but I think there are a lot of soft left members who voted for Corbyn - like NP - who I can't see taking well to her if that article is in anyway representative of her leadership campaign. Hilarious, too, that she's endorsed Angela Rayner for Deputy Leader, when she seemingly hasn't even spoke to her, and there's no indication from Rayner she even wants to run for deputy leadership.
According to the lying Tory press, AR & RLB share a flat when in London so I'd not rule it out.
If he genuinely didn't know the context, doesn't that make what he said independent from it?
If he genuinely didn't know the context and wants to venture into political commentary, it makes him an ignorant fuckwit (as I more or less stated).
I'd say it is quite an obscure phrase & that a humongous majority of people would have no idea of it's original context, but we all need someone to hate on
Indeed its not exactly the n-word is it? A phrase briefly used in the Soviet Union roughly 80 years ago . . . whereas cosmopolitan is a word used very regularly nowadays.
If he genuinely didn't know the context, doesn't that make what he said independent from it?
If he genuinely didn't know the context and wants to venture into political commentary, it makes him an ignorant fuckwit (as I more or less stated).
I'd say it is quite an obscure phrase & that a humongous majority of people would have no idea of it's original context, but we all need someone to hate on
It's the woke liberals and the rootless cosmopolitans for wee Pauly it would appear.
If he genuinely didn't know the context, doesn't that make what he said independent from it?
If he genuinely didn't know the context and wants to venture into political commentary, it makes him an ignorant fuckwit (as I more or less stated).
I'd say it is quite an obscure phrase & that a humongous majority of people would have no idea of it's original context, but we all need someone to hate on
Indeed its not exactly the n-word is it? A phrase briefly used in the Soviet Union roughly 80 years ago . . . whereas cosmopolitan is a word used very regularly nowadays.
Yet another reason to leave the EU - today's introduction of EU taxes fines for car manufacturers who don't sell enough electric cars.
Right now, none of them do, and they don't have the capacity to do so either. The new rulest will just make new, more efficient, cars more expensive - and the EU coffers richer.
Good enough for them , these big businesses need to be shown they are not the be all and end all.
The thing is that pretty much every new car sold is way more efficient than the car it replaces. All this does is make almost every new car more expensive and therefore less likely to take an older, less efficient car off the roads.
Actually it's bugger all to do with cars, it's just a way of raising funds directly for the EU, in areas where they're not allowed to levy taxes. Co-incidentally, it's estimated that it will raise about as much for the EU as the UK contribution annually.
That's a false analogy. Sure a 2019 inefficient car is more efficient than a 2009 car. But a 2019 inefficient car might still be on the road in 2029 while then 2009 one might not have been.
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
In religious studies, it was said there are six Greek words for love. Didn't go through them all, but there was eros (frisky time love), philadelphia (love of one's city), agape (sacrificial love), and love of one's brother, the name of which I forget.
It is interesting that English, which has a pretty large number of words in it, has just the one.
philadelphia = brotherly love
No, that's storge. Philia means 'friendship (platonic)' and 'philadelphia' means 'place where affection is.'
Agápe: sacrificial love Éros: frisky time love Philia: loyalty to friends and community Storge: love for parents and children Philautia: self-respect Xenia: hospitality to strangers. No, Sunil, not Lucy Lawless.
Because that's regressive and hits poorer people harder. The EU scheme places the costs on those that can better afford it - purchasers of new cars. The scheme is cleverly designed and very effective.
Quite obviously it doesn't hit poorer people harder. It hits users of fuel according to how much fuel they use. That means it hits richer people who have more powerful vehicles harder. VED should be abolished and put on to fuel duty too.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Unlikely, 20 year old cars tend to get scrapped before then for a variety of reasons.
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
Because that's regressive and hits poorer people harder. The EU scheme places the costs on those that can better afford it - purchasers of new cars. The scheme is cleverly designed and very effective.
Quite obviously it doesn't hit poorer people harder. It hits users of fuel according to how much fuel they use. That means it hits richer people who have more powerful vehicles harder. VED should be abolished and put on to fuel duty too.
Given poorer people tend to have older and less efficient cars they can be hit harder.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Unlikely, 20 year old cars tend to get scrapped before then for a variety of reasons.
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
Fuel duty is directly tied to said emissions. I am amazed anyone is arguing that there is a fairer solution.
Literally just watching this guy on Triggernometry on Youtube. He seems to actually be talking sense, the sort of person Labour needs to but won't listen to I suspect.
Regardless of his utility, there is a logical problem with hunting people to extinction in the name of tolerance...
Literally just watching this guy on Triggernometry on Youtube. He seems to actually be talking sense, the sort of person Labour needs to but won't listen to I suspect.
"In the name of tolerance, we must not tolerate these people! In the name of free speech, we must prevent these people from speaking! To prevent no-platforming, we must prevent these people from having a platform!"
Yup. Makes sense, that. Not even slightly illogical.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Unlikely, 20 year old cars tend to get scrapped before then for a variety of reasons.
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
Fuel duty is directly tied to said emissions. I am amazed anyone is arguing that there is a fairer solution.
Fuel duty is fair. Emissions up front taxes are also fair. Its not either/or.
This new model balances up front costs with emissions before rather than after the car is on the road. The car people drive is largely a sunk cost apart from when cars get purchased so linking the cost with purchase as well as afterwards is entirely reasonable.
Mr. kinabalu, the problem with the so-called progressive left isn't that they don't love their country, it's that they seem to dislike it.
Yes. That is damaging and needs to go. Even if much of it is perception over reality it needs to go. But let's not overcompensate and become phony. Patriotism IS the last refuge of scoundrels so let's leave it to Boris Johnson.
Nah it’s a false appeal to patriotism that is the problem not patriotism itself
This runs into a bit of a meta problem in that it depends what you mean by love. The best definition I know is that you love someone (or perhaps something) if their happiness is essential to your own, but I’m not sure if that helps here.
I like that definition but it is restricted to people or animals. Whereas I do think you can "love" a landscape, for example. Or a song. What you can't love is an abstract thing such as a country. Not even in the Enoch Powell sense of the physical place since the physical place is too big and varied for you to even know it let alone form an opinion on it as a whole. Who loves both Harrogate and Hartlepool? Very few.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Unlikely, 20 year old cars tend to get scrapped before then for a variety of reasons.
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
But what they are going is levelling up the price of petrol cars to match the hybrids, rather than levelling down the price of hybrids to match petrol cars. All this does is makes new cars in general more expensive and therefore reduces the demand for them.
The guy who currently drives a Range Rover isn't going to suddenly buy a Prius, if the price of a new Range Rover goes up he's just going to wait a few years more before he buys the new one - a few years more where the old, dirty one is out there polluting.
The cost of transport is the biggest single break on the economy, if the UK government want to encourage a reduction in emissions then they should incentivise efficient cars and run a scrappage scheme as they did a decade ago, to get old and inefficient cars off the road.
Mr. kinabalu, the problem with the so-called progressive left isn't that they don't love their country, it's that they seem to dislike it.
Yes. That is damaging and needs to go. Even if much of it is perception over reality it needs to go. But let's not overcompensate and become phony. Patriotism IS the last refuge of scoundrels so let's leave it to Boris Johnson.
Nah it’s a false appeal to patriotism that is the problem not patriotism itself
Patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel is an often misunderstood quote (as it is here). It actually means that after all other moral stances have been abandoned, you will still find a scoundrel can be appealed to on the basis of his patriotism. Hence last refuge. It does not mean that scoundrels have a habit of disguising their scoundrelism under the guise of patriotism.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Unlikely, 20 year old cars tend to get scrapped before then for a variety of reasons.
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
Fuel duty is directly tied to said emissions. I am amazed anyone is arguing that there is a fairer solution.
Fuel duty is fair. Emissions up front taxes are also fair. Its not either/or.
This new model balances up front costs with emissions before rather than after the car is on the road. The car people drive is largely a sunk cost apart from when cars get purchased so linking the cost with purchase as well as afterwards is entirely reasonable.
Part of the problem is the tax addiction issue - we are already at the stage that 80% of the price of petrol goes to the government. You should hear the fear that some in The System have about the coming electric revolution....
The overall fleet system was an interesting idea one, because it meant manufacturers of ICE cars having to "buy" ZEV production from the actual producers of the ZEVs - hence the big Tesla/Fiat Chrysler deal. The problem with that, for some people, was that the government didn't get to wet its beak.
The biggest issue in Europe with electric vehicles is the stubborn refusal of the big car makers to invest in battery production. Porsche was actually hit by a negative price curve from their suppliers at one point - they got told if they wanted more batteries, the price would go up, since it would require building new factories.
Literally just watching this guy on Triggernometry on Youtube. He seems to actually be talking sense, the sort of person Labour needs to but won't listen to I suspect.
"In the name of tolerance, we must not tolerate these people! In the name of free speech, we must prevent these people from speaking! To prevent no-platforming, we must prevent these people from having a platform!"
Yup. Makes sense, that. Not even slightly illogical.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Unlikely, 20 year old cars tend to get scrapped before then for a variety of reasons.
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
But what they are going is levelling up the price of petrol cars to match the hybrids, rather than levelling down the price of hybrids to match petrol cars. All this does is makes new cars in general more expensive and therefore reduces the demand for them.
The guy who currently drives a Range Rover isn't going to suddenly buy a Prius, if the price of a new Range Rover goes up he's just going to wait a few years more before he buys the new one - a few years more where the old, dirty one is out there polluting.
The cost of transport is the biggest single break on the economy, if the UK government want to encourage a reduction in emissions then they should incentivise efficient cars and run a scrappage scheme as they did a decade ago, to get old and inefficient cars off the road.
You're wrong, you've misunderstood the proposal it seems.
If it was simply a tax per gram above 95g then that would be levelling up prices. However that is not the proposal.
The tax is based on the average across the entire manufacturer. Thus a low emission sale offsets high emission sales, thus its price goes down just as much if not more than high emission vehicles go up. A single electric vehicle sale can offset over 5 grand of taxes from high emission vehicles.
But the way this tax is set up is to make larger cars way more expensive - with the end result that will be a load more 2009 cars still on the roads in 2029 than would otherwise be the case as these don't get replaced.
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Unlikely, 20 year old cars tend to get scrapped before then for a variety of reasons.
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
Fuel duty is directly tied to said emissions. I am amazed anyone is arguing that there is a fairer solution.
Fuel duty is fair. Emissions up front taxes are also fair. Its not either/or.
This new model balances up front costs with emissions before rather than after the car is on the road. The car people drive is largely a sunk cost apart from when cars get purchased so linking the cost with purchase as well as afterwards is entirely reasonable.
Given that if a car manufacturer is fined, it will entirely up to them how they recoup their costs, fairness is in no way guaranteed.
Mr. kinabalu, the problem with the so-called progressive left isn't that they don't love their country, it's that they seem to dislike it.
Yes. That is damaging and needs to go. Even if much of it is perception over reality it needs to go. But let's not overcompensate and become phony. Patriotism IS the last refuge of scoundrels so let's leave it to Boris Johnson.
Nah it’s a false appeal to patriotism that is the problem not patriotism itself
Patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel is an often misunderstood quote (as it is here). It actually means that after all other moral stances have been abandoned, you will still find a scoundrel can be appealed to on the basis of his patriotism. Hence last refuge. It does not mean that scoundrels have a habit of disguising their scoundrelism under the guise of patriotism.
Comments
The attitude of an undoubted war fighter, Orde Wingate, to Powell is interesting.
'Orde Wingate, also involved in planning that operation, had taken such a dislike to Powell that he asked a colleague to restrain him if he was tempted to "beat his brains in"'
Actually it's bugger all to do with cars, it's just a way of raising funds directly for the EU, in areas where they're not allowed to levy taxes. Co-incidentally, it's estimated that it will raise about as much for the EU as the UK contribution annually.
But might be a problem with the nominations.
Go on Lavery, you know it makes sense.
For me a country is the ultimate expression of a desire for self determination by people with a shared cultural and linguistic heritage. What matters is that it is a recognisable entity within which the people can make their own laws and customs to suit their own views and beliefs. But whilst I consider that something to be cherished and defended through any means necessary that does not make me love it. Love in the form we are talking about here is reserved, in my mind, for family and friends, and the ever loyal pet dog.
To hark back to the Thatcher/Powell exchange, I believe Thatcher was correct. It is shared beliefs and freedoms which are what are worth defending, not the trappings of statehood. If my country no longer defends those beliefs and freedoms then it is no longer worthy of defence.
Pollution is a negative externality and putting taxes on negative externalities makes sense. Once we leave the EU and this tax doesn't apply to us then the Chancellor should announce it in the budget with the revenues going to our Treasury rather than the EUs.
I'd have no qualms with those still purchasing inefficient new cars in 2020 being taxed more and those funds going to fund the roads or NHS rather than some EU white elephant.
How can we learn the lessons of history if we can't mention it?
https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1210988414901923845?s=20
The net effect for Brexitstan will be more expensive low emission vehicles as the OEMs have no need to offset UK sales of high emission products to bring their average down.
Still on 45 percent of the vote, you know.
Don't have link but will refloat the next time that class is getting bandied about.
When you get into the details, it's really tricky. When people start talking about "Britain" it gets even stranger when you interrogate what they actually mean: with many people when you realise that they are using "Britain" and "England" interchangeably their statements become a lot clearer.
Within perhaps three to four years the policy will render itself unnecessary as EVs will be significantly cheaper to produce than their direct ICE equivalents.
I'm attracted to President Heinemann's austere "I do not love my country. I love my wife." but that was in the postwar German context, where love of country had turned into something much worse - I fear the growth of nationalism that takes the form of believing in superiority to and greater rights than other countries. Cookie's straightforward affection and happiness in Britain is very natural, and threatens nobody.
Those of us with multi-country backgrounds have similar but more complicated feelings. I feel Cookie's sense of comfort and familiairity in Denmark, where I grew up, more than Godalming, which is just a place I happen to live in at the moment. But I'm more at home with British culture than Danish culture, because I wasn't much into culture when I was growing up. Given Tebbit's test, if there was a sports match between England and Denmark, I'd be pretty neutral. I don't think that makes me a bad or dangerous person (though it'd be awkward if we went to war with Denmark), any more than Cookie - we're just reflecting our individual stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lfqvof8czw
Also you're wrong it doesn't make every new car more expensive, its granulated. New efficient cars are untaxed with this proposal, while new inefficient cars are taxed more for every gram of pollutant above the threshold. Meaning even if you take a car that currently emits 120g per km it will be taxed by 25x£81 = £2,025 while if you make that car more efficient so it only emits 110g per km then its tax would be reduced by £810. If you manage to get the emissions down below 95g per km then it would be tax-free.
Indeed if you manage to get the emissions below 95g then it would be effectively negatively taxed (since it would offset the emissions of more polluting cars). Design and sell a car emitting only 85g per km and it will essentially get a tax-rebate of £810
By putting a price tag on negative externalities the free market can deal with them.
Incidentally since electric vehicle sales can offset the taxes of more polluting vehicles it gives a massive incentive to sell electric vehicles for cheaper than more polluting older designs.
A modern electric vehicles emits approximately 33g per km I believe. If I understand this correctly then that means 62 * £81 = £5,022 of tax rebate essentially for every electric vehicle sold. That rebate can in part or whole be passed on to the consumer, while the tax increase on polluting vehicles can in part or whole be passed on to the consumer too.
On love, I'm not sure. I think Britain is the best country in the world. I'm not sure I love it in any meaningful sense.
This is a sensible proposal as it will up front make cars better reflect their true cost. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper up front while heavily polluting vehicles can be more expensive up front.
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1211411326398017537?s=20
The origin of a phrase may be different to the context it is used in.
There probably won't be much of UK car industry left after the current production cycle ends, sadly.
Plus its an entirely voluntary tax that its possible to avoid. Currently purchasers of new cars have to pay a lot for clean vehicles and purchasers of second hand cars have as a result a lot more dirty cars to choose from when new cars get sold on.
This "tax" is entirely voluntary and could raise zero very quickly. Essentially purchasers of new Electric Vehicles will get a subsidy of up to £5000 fully funded those paying thousands more for petrol and diesel vehicles.
The market will do what it does and very quickly we will reach equilibrium with more and cheaper clean vehicles on the road which will ultimately filter through to the second hand market too.
Are phrases such as 'Keep England White' or the 'sinister confederacy' of 'International Jews' now acceptable once removed form their original context?
If you want to incentivise electric and ultra-efficient cars then put tax breaks on them as happened previously - don't increase the price of the vast majority of other new cars in order to do it.
Éros: frisky time love
Philia: loyalty to friends and community
Storge: love for parents and children
Philautia: self-respect
Xenia: hospitality to strangers. No, Sunil, not Lucy Lawless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
Larger cars don't get way more expensive, inefficient cars do. Its possible to get large and efficient electric or hybrid vehicles which will attract a subsidy under this model not a high tax. Many companies are in large part due to this tax and other incentives looking to eliminate pure petrol/diesel vehicles and to only sell hybrid or electric, they will be untaxed once they've done that.
Given there are low emitting vehicles available today I don't see why subsidies to them should come from general taxation and why they can't come from taxing those who choose to add a new high emitting vehicle onto the roads.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21953364
pile of shitJedi.See you the other side.
https://twitter.com/yorkshirepost/status/1211044152156180480?s=20
Yup. Makes sense, that. Not even slightly illogical.
This new model balances up front costs with emissions before rather than after the car is on the road. The car people drive is largely a sunk cost apart from when cars get purchased so linking the cost with purchase as well as afterwards is entirely reasonable.
The guy who currently drives a Range Rover isn't going to suddenly buy a Prius, if the price of a new Range Rover goes up he's just going to wait a few years more before he buys the new one - a few years more where the old, dirty one is out there polluting.
The cost of transport is the biggest single break on the economy, if the UK government want to encourage a reduction in emissions then they should incentivise efficient cars and run a scrappage scheme as they did a decade ago, to get old and inefficient cars off the road.
Her odds would be 100-1
The overall fleet system was an interesting idea one, because it meant manufacturers of ICE cars having to "buy" ZEV production from the actual producers of the ZEVs - hence the big Tesla/Fiat Chrysler deal. The problem with that, for some people, was that the government didn't get to wet its beak.
The biggest issue in Europe with electric vehicles is the stubborn refusal of the big car makers to invest in battery production. Porsche was actually hit by a negative price curve from their suppliers at one point - they got told if they wanted more batteries, the price would go up, since it would require building new factories.
If it was simply a tax per gram above 95g then that would be levelling up prices. However that is not the proposal.
The tax is based on the average across the entire manufacturer. Thus a low emission sale offsets high emission sales, thus its price goes down just as much if not more than high emission vehicles go up. A single electric vehicle sale can offset over 5 grand of taxes from high emission vehicles.
Oscar Wilde had a few words on the subject : https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/06/28/patriot/