Bollitics The new leader of the Labour Party

[snowychap]

Ever read their policies on cars and taxation?

I've read a fair bit on The Green party's policies.

I've never seen anything about 'vegetable rights' and I doubt their taxation policies will be hugely more burdensome on car users than the current ones of the Tories/Labour.

Though I know your post was an amusing one, it rather epitomizes an attitude to the green party and entrenched resistance (to anything really radical) at the heart of the british political 'debate', especially from supporters of the two main parties, which bodes ill for the future.

For avoidance of doubt, I am not a green party supporter (or supporter of/voter for any party).

[villaajax]

 

Ever read their policies on cars and taxation?

I've read a fair bit on The Green party's policies.

I've never seen anything about 'vegetable rights' and I doubt their taxation policies will be hugely more burdensome on car users than the current ones of the Tories/Labour.

Though I know your post was an amusing one, it rather epitomizes an attitude to the green party and entrenched resistance (to anything really radical) at the heart of the british political 'debate', especially from supporters of the two main parties, which bodes ill for the future.

For avoidance of doubt, I am not a green party supporter (or supporter of/voter for any party).

 

 

Having to retake your test every 5 years would be a bit of a burden.

Large increase in our already high fuel duty would be a bit of a burden.

Increase in car tax would be a bit of a burden.

Lowering the national speed limit would be a bit of a burden.

Pedestrianisation of roads would be a bit of a burden in some areas

"legislation on measures such as turning off engines when waiting" would be more than an annoyance.

Reintroducing tax on classic cars would be a burden.

More bus lanes.

More speed cameras and speed bumps would be a burden.

Anti on street parking measures to be taken would be a burden for people living in cities and large towns.

Putting a charge on each shipping container transported by road would be more than a burden for a lot of businesses.

 

I could go on.

[snowychap]

Having to retake your test every 5 years would be a bit of a burden. That's not taxation.

Large increase in our already high fuel duty would be a bit of a burden. Quantify this 'large' increase (will it be hugely more burdensome than the fuel duty already imposed?)

Increase in car tax would be a bit of a burden. Would it be much more of a burden than the vehicle excise duty already being paid?

Lowering the national speed limit would be a bit of a burden. That's not taxation.

Pedestrianisation of roads would be a bit of a burden in some areas. That's not taxation.

"legislation on measures such as turning off engines when waiting" would be more than an annoyance. That's not taxation.

Reintroducing tax on classic cars would be a burden. For a tiny minority who own classic cars - and would that be 'heavy taxation'?

More bus lanes. That's not taxation.

More speed cameras and speed bumps would be a burden. That's not taxation (though arguments have been made on the first, I know )

Anti on street parking measures to be taken would be a burden for people living in cities and large towns. That's not taxation.

Putting a charge on each shipping container transported by road would be more than a burden for a lot of businesses. That's the kind of 'incentive' taxation of which your party is very much in favour.

I could go on.

If you're going to repeat the kinds of things that you have above then it may not be in your best interests to do so.

 

 

[Risso]

To be fair he did say "cars and taxation".  Not "taxation on cars" which you seem to have inferred!

[villaajax]

 

Having to retake your test every 5 years would be a bit of a burden. That's not taxation. No, it's about cars.

Large increase in our already high fuel duty would be a bit of a burden. Quantify this 'large' increase (will it be hugely more burdensome than the fuel duty already imposed?) They haven't quantified in their policy but suggested it.

Increase in car tax would be a bit of a burden. Would it be much more of a burden than the vehicle excise duty already being paid? I think we can all agree that paying more tax would be more of a burden. Hence 'increase'.

Lowering the national speed limit would be a bit of a burden. That's not taxation. No, it's about cars.

Pedestrianisation of roads would be a bit of a burden in some areas. That's not taxation. No, it's about cars.

"legislation on measures such as turning off engines when waiting" would be more than an annoyance. That's not taxation. No, it's about cars.

Reintroducing tax on classic cars would be a burden. For a tiny minority who own classic cars - and would that be 'heavy taxation'? I didn't say a heavy taxation on classic cars but reintroducing a tax on something that is tax free would be a burden.

More bus lanes. That's not taxation. No, it's about cars and buses taking up more room.

More speed cameras and speed bumps would be a burden. That's not taxation (though arguments have been made on the first, I know ) No, it's about cars.

Anti on street parking measures to be taken would be a burden for people living in cities and large towns. That's not taxation. No, it's about cars.

Putting a charge on each shipping container transported by road would be more than a burden for a lot of businesses. That's the kind of 'incentive' taxation of which your party is very much in favour. I don't agree with every single Labour policy, I doubt their are many who agree with every single policy of their party.

I could go on.

If you're going to repeat the kinds of things that you have above then it may not be in your best interests to do so.

 

 

Oh dear, now who feels a bit silly?

[snowychap]

To be fair he did say "cars and taxation".  Not "taxation on cars" which you seem to have inferred!

 

To be really fair, he did say:

 

link to post on previous page

I'm not sure vegetable rights and heavy taxation on anyone who owns a car are a real vote winner.

 

The inference drawn that the problem was the heavy taxation (on car owners) rather than policies about cars looks pretty in line with any assumed implication, doesn't it?

 

Edit: As per my post below, the poster could now try and claim that it was an overall reference to 'heavy taxation' under general Green party policies but that would still have been a point about taxation.

Edited October 9, 2014 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Oh dear, now who feels a bit silly?

As per above, I suggest you go back to what you originally posted and ask yourself the question.

I suppose you could have meant that there was going to be heavy taxation on car owners for reasons other than car ownership due to some other Green party policies but that would have still been about taxation.

[tonyh29]

I'm getting a bit lost here .... What if the Green Party announce a policy to heavily tax anyone who owns a car

Who would feel silly then ?

[tonyh29]

I'd guess Mrs Balls would be more to the front of the queue than Harman.

As per a post above, I'd be surprised if the next one weren't Chuka - though when that's likely to be is up to Ed (and the electorate).

There is certainly a potential leader there on the face of it.

Accepting a £20k gift from betting chains whilst campaigning against them ...

Yep he'll fit right in at number 10

[snowychap]

Accepting a £20k gift from betting chains whilst campaigning against them ...

Yep he'll fit right in at number 10

If it was in the form of one of Coral's SNR bets then it's hardly a gift.

[kidlewis]

Lets not talk about the Greens.

 

They hate London for a start, an example being

 

 

 

 Legislation should be introduced to ban short-haul flights from London, in order to free up vital capacity for long haul and business trips and allow the overall size of the airport to be scaled back.

 

Short Haul is any flight within Europe..... their solution is trains. 

 

yeah because that works....

 

If you are going to Paris or Brussels then fine. Anywhere else forget it. 

 

 

and here's a real winner

 

 

 

Six of the top ten destinations flown from London's airports are short-haul destinations (Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paris, Manchester and Frankfurt) that could potentially be accessed using a high-speed rail link. These flights represent 14% of all London airport traffic. 

 

er...

 

 

 

The Greens are the only Party in opposition to HS2 at Westminster since the project has had the backing of all three main party leaders since its inception (which occurred during that last Labour Government), despite some backbench protest.

 

 

Thinking the Greens would be any better at it than the two main parties isn't really a good thought. 

 

 

I'd still like to see parties, but still not convinced the whips would be something I would like. 

 

I wouldn't want to vote for something utterly retarded because some old angry codger told me I had to.

[snowychap]

Lets not talk about the Greens.

Let's not talk about them but let's pick a couple of their policies and pick them apart as representative of anything they may suggest?

BTW, I don't think 'yeah because that works' is really a convincing counter argument.

Thinking the Greens would be any better at it than the two main parties isn't really a good thought.

Making the above comment isn't really an apposite thought unless you're specifically addressing yourself to those who may be thinking that.

[bickster]

Lets not talk about the Greens.

 

They hate London for a start, an example being

 

 Legislation should be introduced to ban short-haul flights from London, in order to free up vital capacity for long haul and business trips and allow the overall size of the airport to be scaled back.

 

Short Haul is any flight within Europe..... their solution is trains. 

 

yeah because that works....

 

If you are going to Paris or Brussels then fine. Anywhere else forget it. 

 

 

and here's a real winner

 

Six of the top ten destinations flown from London's airports are short-haul destinations (Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paris, Manchester and Frankfurt) that could potentially be accessed using a high-speed rail link. These flights represent 14% of all London airport traffic. 

 

er...

 

The Greens are the only Party in opposition to HS2 at Westminster since the project has had the backing of all three main party leaders since its inception (which occurred during that last Labour Government), despite some backbench protest.

 

 

Thinking the Greens would be any better at it than the two main parties isn't really a good thought. 

 

 

I'd still like to see parties, but still not convinced the whips would be something I would like. 

 

I wouldn't want to vote for something utterly retarded because some old angry codger told me I had to.

You do realise that wanting to reduce short haul flights from London isn't about hating London don't you?. There's nothing there to say they want to reduce short haul flights from Brum, Manchester or any other regional airport. See its about shifting the capacity around the country so London doesn't actually need an airport extension. Its like flying with BA for everyone who doesn't live in the London but in reverse

You do realise that being against HS2 because the money would be better spent improving the rail network for the whole country isn't the logical fallacy you suggest. HS2 is about capacity not speed really, it is possible to spend the money a different way to benefit more people and get greater capacity. It just means the fastest way to get from Brum to London remains at the hour mark not the 50 minutes mark. That ten minutes is soooo important.

Oh and whats wrong with hating London, this country needs to be massively decentralised

[snowychap]

I'm getting a bit lost here .... What if the Green Party announce a policy to heavily tax anyone who owns a car

Then it would appear to be correct to say that they have a policy of heavy taxation on anyone who owns a car (whether that policy would be hugely more burdensome on car owners than current policies would be down to the detail ).

[villaajax]

That's right snowy, overlook all of the other valid points if you think that makes you right

[snowychap]

That's right snowy, overlook all of the other valid points if you think that makes you right

Do you understand what a valid point looks like?

[villaajax]

Yes, apparently you don't. Have a read up on it.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Lets not talk about the Greens.

They hate London for a start, an example being

Legislation should be introduced to ban short-haul flights from London, in order to free up vital capacity for long haul and business trips and allow the overall size of the airport to be scaled back.

Short Haul is any flight within Europe..... their solution is trains.

yeah because that works....

If you are going to Paris or Brussels then fine. Anywhere else forget it.

and here's a real winner

Six of the top ten destinations flown from London's airports are short-haul destinations (Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paris, Manchester and Frankfurt) that could potentially be accessed using a high-speed rail link. These flights represent 14% of all London airport traffic.

er...

The Greens are the only Party in opposition to HS2 at Westminster since the project has had the backing of all three main party leaders since its inception (which occurred during that last Labour Government), despite some backbench protest.

Thinking the Greens would be any better at it than the two main parties isn't really a good thought.

I'd still like to see parties, but still not convinced the whips would be something I would like.

I wouldn't want to vote for something utterly retarded because some old angry codger told me I had to.

You do realise that wanting to reduce short haul flights from London isn't about hating London don't you?. There's nothing there to say they want to reduce short haul flights from Brum, Manchester or any other regional airport. See its about shifting the capacity around the country so London doesn't actually need an airport extension. Its like flying with BA for everyone who doesn't live in the London but in reverse

You do realise that being against HS2 because the money would be better spent improving the rail network for the whole country isn't the logical fallacy you suggest. HS2 is about capacity not speed really, it is possible to spend the money a different way to benefit more people and get greater capacity. It just means the fastest way to get from Brum to London remains at the hour mark not the 50 minutes mark. That ten minutes is soooo important.

Oh and whats wrong with hating London, this country needs to be massively decentralised

It's actually 1 hour 22 minutes from Euston to Birmingham. Somebody once told me of a train that took 1 hour 12 minutes, but I have yet to ever see this train available, perhaps somebody can correct me. 32 minutes on a journey of that length is huge, it opens up Birmingham as a genuinely commutable journey into the city and vice versa. That's fantastic news for capitalist Brum.

Just FYI.

Edit - won't it also mean more people using BHX as a transport hub rather than Heathrow etc, which are in reality a ways from central London. I live near finsbury park (zone 2), it would actually be quicker for me to get to BHX than Heathrow. It's a close call as it is.

Edited October 11, 2014 by dont_do_it_doug.

[snowychap]

Yes, apparently you don't. Have a read up on it.

... vegetable rights ...

Yeah, right.

If you had wanted to complain about the Green party's policies on cars then you should have said that and I would probably have agreed that they have a different attitude to car use than Labour and the Tories (and that may well show up in different tax policies though whether they would be hugely more burdensome than current policies would need to be looked at) but I would have also gone on to say that's it's probably a discussion that needs to be had.

If you make a specific point about heavy taxation on anyone who owns a car and you want other people to engage in a debate with you and take what you may have to say seriously then don't try and support your argument with things that are not about heavy taxation on anyone who owns a car.

Edited October 11, 2014 by snowychap

[villaajax]

I brought up the points that the Green's would increase car tax.

They would increase fuel duty, which is a form of tax or "The Green Party would increase road fuel tax incrementally until the revenue of fuel tax covers a high proportion of road traffic's external costs." as they put it themselves.

They would reintroduce a tax on classic cars, which is currently tax free.

Although I didn't bring it up, they want to raise emissions taxes on cars as well as introduce a vehicle purchasing tax, as if the price of a new car isn't enough already they want you to pay tax on top of that.

A tax on SUVs is one of their policies.

 

But go ahead, ignore all of that. Maybe you're well off enough that a tax increase is meaningless to you and there for 'heavy' means nothing but for the average person, increasing and introducing many taxes would be heavy, especially when combined.

 

 

Quote came from their own policy website

Edited October 11, 2014 by blandy