Do you want to discuss boring politics? (193 Viewers)

PVA

Well-Known Member
That’s lovely. Shame if they own a non compliant Land Rover with a price guide of £18,000 - still line up the mini folks

This is a terrible example.

Someone who owns an 18k car can afford the ULEZ charge. If they really can't, or they just don't want to pay it, then there are plenty of 18k cars that do meet it (including land rovers).

They really aren't the demographic that's affected by ULEZ.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Where is the source of this data?
Mate, you’re the one misrepresenting already flawed data made on presumption's. I googled what you said and it took me straight to the RAC report where it instantly said “could” lead to 700K non compliant vehicles not 100% will be 700K as you tried to represent it and within the first paragraph tells you it has worked that number out based on the assumption that no cars registered before the Euro 6 standard or the Euro 4 standard became law for new registrations were non compliant. You think you’re the industry expert. You know that the manufacturing commitments came in a year before the registration deadlines and you know that they were making compliant cars long before that deadline. The Mini being the perfect example they were building them in petrol meeting Euro 4 compliance 4 years before Euro 4 became law.

I know you’re wrong and have given the data to prove it. If you think I’m wrong you provide the data. It would certainly help your case more than pretending to be stupid.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
This is a terrible example.

Someone who owns an 18k car can afford the ULEZ charge. If they really can't, or they just don't want to pay it, then there are plenty of 18k cars that do meet it (including land rovers).

They really aren't the demographic that's affected by ULEZ.
They should have bought a Volvo, BMW etc etc equivalent in the first place. All the self proclaimed JLR executive has demonstrated is that JLR didn’t future proof their cars while their competitors were. Not sure how ULEZ can be blamed for JLR’s competitors keeping up with the pace while JLR didn’t.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
This is a terrible example.

Someone who owns an 18k car can afford the ULEZ charge. If they really can't, or they just don't want to pay it, then there are plenty of 18k cars that do meet it (including land rovers).

They really aren't the demographic that's affected by ULEZ.

It was an extreme case to illustrate the absurdity of Tony’s argument. My rather lovely brand new Mercedes of course would qualify so why would I care. I can wave at the plebs now standing at the bus stop as they can’t afford the fee.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It was an extreme case to illustrate the absurdity of Tony’s argument. My rather lovely brand new Mercedes of course would qualify so why would I care. I can wave at the plebs now standing at the bus stop as they can’t afford the fee.
And it backfired in your face instantly. First page of google and I found out that any equivalent car made by anyone else almost certainly had been compliant. No wonder you brought German.

Actually you should be able to answer this. How did JLR so spectacularly fail to future proof their cars? Was it because their executives spent all their time on football forums instead of doing their jobs?
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
My Peugeot I have to say has been a bargain used as a van for work a holiday vehicle probably capable of travelling to the Euro's if so inclined and quite cheaply when 5 7 seat's used crossing,road tolls, diesel,and my old one before that used two gallons at most on a journey into the capitol avoiding the congestion charge, chugged along beautifully living there in the week and leaving around 7pm on Friday!
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
And it backfired in your face instantly. First page of google and I found out that any equivalent car made by anyone else almost certainly had been compliant. No wonder you brought German.

Actually you should be able to answer this. How did JLR so spectacularly fail to future proof their cars? Was it because their executives spent all their time on football forums instead of doing their jobs?

It didn’t Tony because my basic point is the only people inconvenienced are the poorest - in looks like your inner Tory is returning
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
But there not are they based on myself as a case in point?

The people who have to pay the fine or be unconvinced are people with older vehicles.

Now who are these people likely to side with at an election?

Are they likely to think - “oh yes I’ll inconvenience myself and save the planet” or will they look to a political party that would back them and remove this tax that inconveniences them?
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
The people who have to pay the fine or be unconvinced are people with older vehicles.

Now who are these people likely to side with at an election?

Are they likely to think - “oh yes I’ll inconvenience myself and save the planet” or will they look to a political party that would back them and remove this tax that inconveniences them?
Depends on what the central funding is doesn't it.
Now I don't know what that's been historically, but I've a feeling the last bloke spaffed a fair bit,no one likes big brother but it pervades our lives?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
The people who have to pay the fine or be unconvinced are people with older vehicles.

Now who are these people likely to side with at an election?

Are they likely to think - “oh yes I’ll inconvenience myself and save the planet” or will they look to a political party that would back them and remove this tax that inconveniences them?
Well the last London Mayoral election was only in May and the person who inconvenienced them with this “tax” won by a landslide so I guess the answer is yes. Most people accept the necessity of ULEZ to get the gains in air quality and health benefits that brings. A few noisy frothers, aside the policy is A) popular and B) successful in what it aims to achieve.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Well the last London Mayoral election was only in May and the person who inconvenienced them with this “tax” won by a landslide so I guess the answer is yes. Most people accept the necessity of ULEZ to get the gains in air quality and health benefits that brings. A few noisy frothers, aside the policy is A) popular and B) successful in what it aims to achieve.

Point proven
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
I just don’t think banning new ICE vehicles from 2030, when the rest of the EU which Starmer loves is aiming for 2035. I am totally unconvinced that the generating and distribution capacity will be there, nor the public charging system. The roads will need massive investment to take the increase in average weight. I certainly wont be going anywhere near multi storey car parks.

As others have commented, reducing the weight of ICE vehicle’s would help. Reverse we some of the safety requirements, put an end to all the autonomous driving kit.

Theresa May initially brought in the 2030 deadline. I recall when Johnson extended it to 2035 the automotive industry weren’t happy as they’d accelerated their investment plans on the understanding that ICE would be phased out by 2030 and it presented a risk that uptake would be slower than they’d forecast for. Returning to 2030 is likely working with business to keep their investment plans on track, increasing supply of vehicles due to ramp-up of production and likely resulting in a reduced price point.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Theresa May initially brought in the 2030 deadline. I recall when Johnson extended it to 2035 the automotive industry weren’t happy as they’d accelerated their investment plans on the understanding that ICE would be phased out by 2030 and it presented a risk that uptake would be slower than they’d forecast for. Returning to 2030 is likely working with business to keep their investment plans on track, increasing supply of vehicles due to ramp-up of production and likely resulting in a reduced price point.
But the EU is 2035 And most of the car manufacturers are European.
I'm pretty sure I watched a Shell tv ad this week extolling their electric infrastructure plans to be achieved by 2035. I’m not sure Starmers move is anything to do with the industry, more likely to make Labour appealing to Greens and eco warriors.

I remain unconvinced about infrastructure etc. Let’s hope the lights stay on in 2031.

Any more of Theresa’s plans you would endorse?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Theresa May initially brought in the 2030 deadline. I recall when Johnson extended it to 2035 the automotive industry weren’t happy as they’d accelerated their investment plans on the understanding that ICE would be phased out by 2030 and it presented a risk that uptake would be slower than they’d forecast for. Returning to 2030 is likely working with business to keep their investment plans on track, increasing supply of vehicles due to ramp-up of production and likely resulting in a reduced price point.

90% of vehicles sold in Europe will be some form of ICE through 2030 - 35 and its utterly bonkers for one market to rebel against that
 

skybluejelly

Well-Known Member
Has anybody else seen Keir starmers interview with Nicky Campbell, where a caller asks him about 25% tax free allowance on your pension, and he says they are not going to renew it when it runs out in a couple of years, as they need the money for there manifesto pledges , all hell.breaks loose and labour say he misunderstood the question and thought the question was about mortgages...yeah righty oh

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Has anybody else seen Keir starmers interview with Nicky Campbell, where a caller asks him about 25% tax free allowance on your pension, and he says they are not going to renew it when it runs out in a couple of years, as they need the money for there manifesto pledges , all hell.breaks loose and labour say he misunderstood the question and thought the question was about mortgages...yeah righty oh

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk
Does it ”run out in a couple of years”?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Has anybody else seen Keir starmers interview with Nicky Campbell, where a caller asks him about 25% tax free allowance on your pension, and he says they are not going to renew it when it runs out in a couple of years, as they need the money for there manifesto pledges , all hell.breaks loose and labour say he misunderstood the question and thought the question was about mortgages...yeah righty oh

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

Amazed no one else mentioned it - yes deeply disturbing
 

skybluejelly

Well-Known Member
Does it ”run out in a couple of years”?

I bloody hope not , from what I can see it was supposed to go up to 57 , but neither does mortgage relief run out in two years , Google the interview , and he seems quite adamant that they will stop the 25% tax free when it runs out
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Lkkkjj
I bloody hope not , from what I can see it was supposed to go up to 57 , but neither does mortgage relief run out in two years , Google the interview , and he seems quite adamant that they will stop the 25% tax free when it runs out
So doesn't that suggest it's not going up and remaining the same?
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
I bloody hope not , from what I can see it was supposed to go up to 57 , but neither does mortgage relief run out in two years , Google the interview , and he seems quite adamant that they will stop the 25% tax free when it runs out
He got it mixed up with stamp duty relief for first time buyers which will end in April 25. Labour won’t be extending it. That should be helpful for first time buyers - not. Probably see another increase in house prices in the run up as well.

 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
He got it mixed up with stamp duty relief for first time buyers which will end in April 25. Labour won’t be extending it. That should be helpful for first time buyers - not. Probably see another increase in house prices in the run up as well.

If first time buyers are all heading for £300k+ houses, we really are fucked...
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
How are they so bad at this?



They managed to make me dislike Labour a bit less by hearing that, so fair play to them for that.
He got it mixed up with stamp duty relief for first time buyers which will end in April 25. Labour won’t be extending it. That should be helpful for first time buyers - not. Probably see another increase in house prices in the run up as well.

Not a great look for Starmer to confuse his own policies.
 

skybluejelly

Well-Known Member
He got it mixed up with stamp duty relief for first time buyers which will end in April 25. Labour won’t be extending it. That should be helpful for first time buyers - not. Probably see another increase in house prices in the run up as well.

Yes because it sounds exactly the same when someone says are you going to stop their 25% tax free when they take there pension ...I can see how it sounds exactly the same ..

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
You are a miserable so and so aren’t you. Or are you suggesting that nobody benefitted from that tax break?
Depends if the owner's jacked it again like the last time, it's a signal after all in an already overcooked market isn't it or wasn't it when it came in tbf?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
You are a miserable so and so aren’t you. Or are you suggesting that nobody benefitted from that tax break?
You said first time buyers would suffer from it, I'd suggest that at £300k+, first time buyers who can afford that are doing rather well for themselves and most are certainly not buying at that level.

I mean, I can't help it if you just spout reactionary bollocks can I?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Average house price for a home bought with a mortgage in Coventry is £228,000 btw. First time buyers? £196k...
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
How common/popular is LPG in the UK? I got it fitted in my car to get around pollution laws and pay around €30 or a tank (Audi A3).
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
The Church of England - a Christian presence in every community.
Pray Your Part
Ruth 1.15-18

‘Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.’
Ruth decides to cross the boundaries between Moab and Israel with Naomi, her mother-in-law. For Ruth, Naomi is the family she has, and she decides to stick with her. Their experience resonates with millions of migrants today. People move seeking security and often end up in places where they have family connections.

Ruth will be considered an ‘alien’ in Israel. But even aliens were to be cared for in the community – at least that was God’s commandment. God wanted a community that would welcome foreigners who would end up in their midst. Hospitality, not hostility, was the expected approach.

Once Ruth makes her decision to join Naomi in her journey to Bethlehem, Naomi becomes Ruth’s advocate and supporter. Ruth then finds the strong support of Naomi’s kinsman Boaz, too. We pray today for all migrants and asylum seekers; for those who support and welcome them; for those who set and implement policy and care.
Look with mercy on those who flee from danger,
homeless and hungry.
Bless those who work to bring them relief,
and inspire generosity and compassion in all our hearts.
Hear us, good Lord.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
You said first time buyers would suffer from it, I'd suggest that at £300k+, first time buyers who can afford that are doing rather well for themselves and most are certainly not buying at that level.

I mean, I can't help it if you just spout reactionary bollocks can I?
FFS, the stamp duty break is for first time buyers. I didn’t invent it, nor did I invent Starmers fuck up. According to you it won’t be missed at all - so it will be no great loss.

Unlike winter fuel allowance, bus passes and free prescriptions for pensioners.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top