As I got hot under the collar about two items in the same prog yesterday, I split them into two slightly more digestible chunks! Read on...
Secondly: all this vague waffle from both main political parties about cutting down on car use, which goes largely unchallenged by the pundits.
As I have said before, the blindingly obvious (and very cheap to implement) way to discourage unnecessary mileage and fuel use is to load all the green tax on fuel. But no – they want to make an example of "the owners of Chelsea tractors and gas-guzzling cars" (to trot out a tired cliché or two) by putting up the purchase price. And of course Ken Livingstone has it in for drivers and parkers of same in London.
That has little effect on those of us who can't afford a new car, and certainly doesn't discourage us from making unnecessary journeys in our old bangers.
And it completely ignores the fact that some cars are used for a specific function rather than as a status symbol – at least where I live.
A Defender 110 in London is out of place – but in the country, it is an essential part of the farmer's kit, to drive in fields safely, to transport feed, fencing materials and small livestock, and all the rest. Why should my neighbours be penalised just because some silly woman in London chooses an inappropriate vehicle to take Sebastian and Tobes to their posh school?
However, politicians don't, generally, live in the same world as us ordinary mortals, and probably don't realise that cars can actually be driven after they are three years old, or carry bales of hay in the back.
I'm afraid it all smacks of Old Labour "if we can't all have one then no-one can" – much like the hunting ban was more about giving the toffs a bloody nose than animal welfare. I am very surprised that the Tories are following the same line though!
14/09/07 @ 09:37