Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

Who did you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 137 13.9%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 378 38.4%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 304 30.9%
  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 27 2.7%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%
  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 10 1.0%
  • British National Party

    Votes: 20 2.0%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • DUP

    Votes: 4 0.4%
  • UUP

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.2%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 3 0.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 16 1.6%
  • Abstain

    Votes: 80 8.1%

  • Total voters
    985
  • Poll closed .
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
I see it more as fair and common sense.

The car is here to stay is largely a neccessity.

I work 18 miles from home which is 25 minutes in the car but easily an hour and a half by public transport.
And it seems that the Transport Secretary agrees with you:
Motoring has got to get greener but the car is not going to go away. . . . He accused Labour of pushing up the price of cars by linking the cost of the tax disc to a vehicle’s carbon emissions. ... Mr Hammond drives a Jaguar.
Well that shows the extent of his commitment to make cars "greener" :rolleyes:
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
So you don't accept that most people (who can afford to) will heat their house to a level that is more than just 'essential'.

If that is the case then I totally disagree with you.

I don't know what your definition of "essential" is. Is it enough to survive in an arctic sleeping bag, or 5 layers of shirts, or a t-shirt without shivering. You have to be realistic here. I think it is essential for people to be able to heat their home to a temperature they are comfortable living at. This is a first world country and living standards should be as such.

you failed to point out why there's any flaw in my argument that taxing fuel at a reduced rate is 'fair', as long as you have other ways of ensuring that the poorest people can at least afford to heat their house to a minimum level.

Taxes create administration costs, the most efficient tax system is one where there is as few taxes as possible, ie one rate of tax on all luxury goods and none on essential ones, creating multiple levels results in more beaurocracy. Taxing people on heating costs and then paying them the tax back again in the form of fuel payments is senseless and inefficient.

What is 'fairer'? - Having zero tax on fuel, but having some people still not be able to afford to heat their homes? Or having a 5% tax on fuel, and using the money raised to ensure that the poorest people are able to heat their homes to a minimum 'essential' living temperature?

Those are not the only two options, in the real world there are many other options, ie, no tax on fuel and use the money saved from administration costs + spending cuts to subsidise poor peoples bills.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,384
Location
Plymouth
And it seems that the Transport Secretary agrees with you:

Well that shows the extent of his commitment to make cars "greener" :rolleyes:

What car you own doesn't necessarily show anything. Usage is what determines impact.

The single biggest mistake being made around 'green' cars is the idea that they have to be slow, badly equipped, uncomfortable and generally rubbish. This is the reason why they haven't taken off.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
All this talk of tax on fuels (elec and gas for houses, not cars) should go to a different thread.

The expected and sensible rise in VAT to 20% does not affect the 5% VAT on utility bills (of which essentials like water are VAT exempt).
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,384
Location
Plymouth
Quite the contrary, "One Shotgun Wedding and A Bloody Long Funeral" sums it up nicely, sounds like fun. But fun isn't really what you want in terms of running the country.

Talk about bitter, just because they didn't continue the authoritarian, money wasting reign of labour...
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,384
Location
Plymouth
Labour screwed the working class and until they go back to being a proper left/liberal party i could never vote for them.

Were Labour ever Liberal?, were they not socialist.

Indeed, Labour have never been Liberal...

I'd also note that you don't have to be left wing to not screw the working classes ;) Left wing thinking just requires you to believe that only the government can help people and that the government owns all the money...
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Nov 2002
Posts
18,961
Location
Over land and sea.
Motoring has got to get greener but the car is not going to go away. . . . He accused Labour of pushing up the price of cars by linking the cost of the tax disc to a vehicle’s carbon emissions. ... Mr Hammond drives a Jaguar.

Well that shows the extent of his commitment to make cars "greener" :rolleyes:

Are you aware that the previous Government based the scale of vehicle excise duty on a cars carbon emmissions?
And are you aware of the fundamental flaw in that?
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Posts
4,878
Indeed, Labour have never been Liberal...

I'd also note that you don't have to be left wing to not screw the working classes ;) Left wing thinking just requires you to believe that only the government can help people and that the government owns all the money...

People confuse the liberal socialist ideals such as the Welfare state and the NHS with Labour without realising that it was Liberals that actually came up with the idea and the plans for it. Labour just took the credit. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom