Xann Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 This absurd situation is engineered, and not to aid the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 it's a fantastically complicated problem, we do need to cut down the use of fossil fuels but to suggest people can just work closer to home is as crass a statement as having previously been told to get on my bike and go and look for work electricity for xbox and smart phone and that light in a room you aren't even in is absolutely not essential, my commuting to earn sufficient money to feed my family is far far more important - perhaps we ration fossil fuels? You get 'x' units from the national grid it's your choice to use them for pathetic things like watching telly or using a laptop. You want to waste resources charging a tablet, fine, get yourself a wind turbine. it's either important or it isn't, you can't say my car is wasteful but your holiday flight isn't, or my commute is bad but your night at the movies is ok 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 it's a fantastically complicated problem, we do need to cut down the use of fossil fuels but to suggest people can just work closer to home is as crass a statement as having previously been told to get on my bike and go and look for work electricity for xbox and smart phone and that light in a room you aren't even in is absolutely not essential, my commuting to earn sufficient money to feed my family is far far more important - perhaps we ration fossil fuels? You get 'x' units from the national grid it's your choice to use them for pathetic things like watching telly or using a laptop. You want to waste resources charging a tablet, fine, get yourself a wind turbine. it's either important or it isn't, you can't say my car is wasteful but your holiday flight isn't, or my commute is bad but your night at the movies is ok It's certainly not meant to come across as a let them eat cake type statement. Without the context in my head I can see how it would sound crass, I was just trying to make the point that it's not cheap petrol or not work. Perhaps the fear of people taking things the wrong way is why politicians won't say anything but the least risky thing these days.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I know where you're coming from and at heart, it's right. It needs a politician to have the balls to truly state the facts and to offer a reasonable and fair solution. Not just pick on one part of society. For me personally the price of petrol is critical to my job, how competitive I can be and my family budget. Perhaps what we need is a recalibration of fines for speeding or bad driving. If the fine for speeding was a £1,500 fine and a 2 week suspension that might have much more impact on speeding than 50p being added to the cost of a litre of fuel. Incidentally, just as a pointless aside to put petrol use into a little bit of context, there's a single Icelandic volcano which is currently active (Baroarbunga) and has for the last 12 months been pumping out more pollutants such as sulphites than the sum total of all european fossil fuel power plants combined. I think we might be screwed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Speeding to become exclusively for the rich , I like it Next up As Chris writes the Tory party 2015 manifesto only those with £400k in their bank account are allowed to have children 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) slight revision of policy if you're 'rich'*, the suspension from driving will be longer and your licence will be knocked back to only allow smaller engined less powerful vehicles fines will be used to cover the A road and motorway network with average speed cameras * the universally accepted measure of rich being 'more money and stuff than me' Edited March 18, 2015 by chrisp65 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I hate how people who haven't really thought it through demand cheaper fuel and the politicians just pander to it. More and more tax should be put on fuel. People are incredibly wasteful in this regard. There's no need to be blaring it round in big cars with big engines. Accelerating and decelerating hard is pointless and driving around fast is at best just a leisure pursuit that also harms the environment and at worst is very dangerous. You shouldn't be making it cheaper for people to do this. I'd quite happily pay quite a bit more on petrol/diesel if it meant the money went into providing better healthcare or schools. What about the millions of people who don't own flash cars and who don't drive fast, and for whom a car is a necessity but who still find petrol extremely expensive and a massive proportion of their weekly spend? That's a short sighted way of looking at it. If someone can't afford to run a car, then they can't afford to run a car. There are other options available - public transport, bikes, getting a job closer to home etc. But if it was as simple as you make out, why not make petrol free of tax? Then these people who can't afford petrol would be fine. Taxes are added to certain things to discourage their use, which I'm sure you already know. We need to discourage the use of petrol for obvious reasons, or at least make it more appealing to use less of it. If someone is already running the cheapest possible car they can afford with the lowest running costs, and the extra tax on petrol makes the difference between feeding the family or not that week, then they can't afford to be living that lifestyle. But these are specific cases, cases that can't be accounted for in every piece of decision making. If you account for the person who needs petrol to be cheaper to feed their family, then you're taking the life saving drugs away from someone that the NHS can't afford to pay for - what about them? Wasteful use of petrol and diesel in an inefficient way is a bad thing. This isn't a wishy washy greeny thing. Every encouragement to get people to drive less and more efficiently needs to be there. If those same people had a choice of packing up their 40 a day habit or feeding their family I still know which one they would chose .... Sounds like a wishy washy greeny thing if you ask me but if we all drive crap cars that weren't capable of high speeds then think how many traffics police would lose theist jobs , think of the lost revenue from speed cameras , the lost jobs at the oil companies the petrol stations So my advice ... Drive fast and inefficiently and save the economy ... I like this advice. Might tell that to the nice policeman when he stops me again for speeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Better yet, just have a big classification day where everyone is marked as rich or poor. We're pretty much already siloed at this point anyway, no one's moving out of their group now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 22, 2015 Author Moderator Share Posted March 22, 2015 The petrol thing is a big red herring imo. In ten years time most of us will be driving around in electric cars. The electric Hackney Carriage is about to hit the streets (so if its about to happen for HC's it can't be far off for the rest of us)and councils are already discussing the placing and distribution points for rapid chargers to be placed around our cities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Bad day for Prince Charles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Bad day for Prince Charles! Queen resuscitated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 26, 2015 Author Moderator Share Posted March 26, 2015 Bad day for Prince Charles!Wife found to have horse DNA?Diana resurrected for Easter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 One of the kids is actually his? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Next government pledges to stop paying rip off lease and rental costs for land and property that's nominally 'his' throughout Cornwall thus saving the tax payer millions and stopping him being able to claim he's a legitimate private landlord businessman and isn't just a financial burden on the state whilst he's restricting development and jacking up rental costs in one of the poorest parts of the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 26, 2015 Author Moderator Share Posted March 26, 2015 He was campaigning for the removal of tax on tampons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Kings Fund Review, an NHS thintank, report that NHS services in England are deteriorating at a rate not seen since the early 1990's.Now let me see, which party was in Government then? Anybody see a pattern? Run it down, claim it's not fit for purpose, then privatize it to cronies in the private health care sector. In this election, Cameron and his mates should be out on their arses for this more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Kings Fund Review, an NHS thintank, report that NHS services in England are deteriorating at a rate not seen since the early 1990's.Now let me see, which party was in Government then? Anybody see a pattern? Run it down, claim it's not fit for purpose, then privatize it to cronies in the private health care sector. In this election, Cameron and his mates should be out on their arses for this more than anything. see my previous comments about 6% private up from 4.8% see also previous comments about demand on the NHS increasing being one of the over riding factors ( people going to A&E with a bruised lip for example !!) kings fund review that you refer to even states NHS performance held up well for the first three years of the 2010–2015 parliament but has since come under increasing strain. Patient experience of the NHS generally remains positive, and public confidence is close to an all-time high and the very limited data on outcomes, safety and quality of care indicates some improvement A substantial NHS deficit in the final year of this parliament seems certain, despite extra funds during 2014/15 and with funding boosted more in real terms since 2010 than planned. clicky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Kings Fund Review, an NHS thintank, report that NHS services in England are deteriorating at a rate not seen since the early 1990's.Now let me see, which party was in Government then? Anybody see a pattern? Run it down, claim it's not fit for purpose, then privatize it to cronies in the private health care sector. In this election, Cameron and his mates should be out on their arses for this more than anything. see my previous comments about 6% private up from 4.8% see also previous comments about demand on the NHS increasing being one of the over riding factors ( people going to A&E with a bruised lip for example !!) kings fund review that you refer to even states NHS performance held up well for the first three years of the 2010–2015 parliament but has since come under increasing strain. Patient experience of the NHS generally remains positive, and public confidence is close to an all-time high and the very limited data on outcomes, safety and quality of care indicates some improvement A substantial NHS deficit in the final year of this parliament seems certain, despite extra funds during 2014/15 and with funding boosted more in real terms since 2010 than planned. clicky Utter bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Obviously, an 'in real terms' increase can still be below the rate of healthcare inflation and additional demand placed upon the system. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Bad day for Prince Charles! Didn't know they had found a white Fiat Uno in his garage!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts