All good things come to an end

[Saracen999]

....

I still think there is an easy win for emissions: massive tax relief (zero stamp duty for starters) for people moving within a 2 miles of their place of employment. ?..

What about people already within 2 miles of their work, moving to a new place also within 2 miles of work (but different area)?

Note: This has nothing at all to do with :-

- my office is two flights of stairs down, and
- we're planning a move about 100 miles away.

Honest.

[Saracen999]

...



It isn't the base cost of the house you are comparing to though, it is the incremental cost of moving.

If I move, it is something like £15K in stamp duty in one hit. If I move out of here it is in a box ready to be put 7 feet under, and that expense is a big reason why. It hardly feels like good value, and I did spend less than that on my car.

For SDLT, it kinda is the base cost of the house. For various reasons, we're planning to move from a fairly big house to a much smaller (but more land) one, about 100 miles away, and the SDLT will be about £2500 to £3000.

We get a more manageable and suitable house, quieter area, no commuter belt, a few hundred grand in the bank and a modest SDLT bill. Whoever buys this place gets stung.

It all depends what you move to.

[AC81]

With that one sentence, you've just enraged almost the entirety of London's working community!!
I wish I had your talent!!

It's more than just London.
The whole south east, towns & villages on main lines to London are selling properties as 'commuter towns'
The village i work in (and it is a village) has a train station on a mainline to London. So, although i'm not trying to work in London, i'm actually trying to work in mid kent. The cost of living close to where i work is ridiculously high, purely because it's seen as a good commuter spot to get to London.
And, i imagine that vast swathes of similar towns and villages outside the M25 face similar problems.

Only 1 person i work with (company of about 40 ish people) lives in walking distance to work. (and that's a council house)

No one's commuting for fun, they commute as it's the only practicle way to live at the moment.
And, anything in the future that could potentially price people off the road. Will be detrimental to local econemys and employment figures.

At the moment, i think i'm quite lucky. If in 2034 i can get myself the then equivelant to a Toyota Aygo/Citroen C1 etc. That should see me out to retirement.
But, for the younger generation. The idea that you can commute to your place of work for a midddle - low income. Might well disapear.
It's difficult to see where that affordable travel is coming from.
2nd hand hydrogen cars 'could' provide the answer in the future. But, it's difficult to see that market being good enough in 15 - 25 years when all the governments investment is going towards electric. They're completly blinkered.

[Zak33]

GRant Shapps has just mentioned he's going for an even quicker ban if he can on petrol and diesel

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51474769

New target - 2032

12 years time....

[hb904460]

Why don't the government scope out a phased-in ban? start in 2035 with the most polluting vehicles and work to 2040 for the least? Small engined, usually least expensive, least polluting vehicles would be available longer and so the less well off could still afford a vehicle be it new or second hand. Just an idea.

[kalniel]

Why don't the government scope out a phased-in ban? start in 2035 with the most polluting vehicles and work to 2040 for the least? Small engined, usually least expensive, least polluting vehicles would be available longer and so the less well off could still afford a vehicle be it new or second hand. Just an idea.

There's nothing to say they won't do a phase in of this ban, just that it'll be completed by 2032.

[Zak33]

12 years to be completed - Twelve years

that's a fair old push.. bearing in mind HS2 was first anounced in 2009 and has only just got the green light in 2020, with virtually no work yet begun

[Jonj1611]

Might as well say next week, will never happen

[Zak33]

Might as well say next week, will never happen

agreed.. it's good to have an objective, but it needs to be in reach doesn't it?

If every road in every city is to be dug up to place millions of charge stations, runnning millions of miles of cable to them ..... it might need more than luck

[Jonj1611]

If they had a reasonable timetable with a realistic vision then yes absolutely it's doable, they should have stuck with the 2050 date they had originally. And also should have said engines(diesel and petrol) that produce over xxx of CO2 will be banned from 2035, wind things down slowly while building up the infrastructure.

I would give real money to know what they are smoking in Westminster to come out with something as stupid as 2032

[Ttaskmaster]

GRant Shapps has just mentioned he's going for an even quicker ban if he can on petrol and diesel

Oh, yes mate, most definitely. I'm on board with that. Spiffy new Tesla in my garage, all ready to go!!
Well... there would be if only I could afford such a ridiculous amount of cash. Heck, on my current salary (which is not in cryptocurrency), I'd be lucky to save £8,000 in those 12 years... and then only if I don't buy things like breakfast or lunch ever.

If only some kind soul would sell me a guaranteed method of making £20k in 20 days.... Then I could buy myself two Teslas and some assless Shapps to wear when I drive them!!
You know anyone who could help me with this, Grant?

[watercooled]

Agree with what others have said, it's one thing saying things you likely won't be around (i.e. in government) to see through, and quite another actually achieving them. If the market isn't ready, it ain't gonna happen. And quite obviously, trying to force through a policy which would disadvantage a majority of people would be political suicide, and voters would take the decision back from an out-of-touch government.

Of course, we might be surprised and see electric cars become a realistic option over the next few years in which case the above would be irrelevant anyway, but that would be dictated by the market, not politics.

I understand the thinking behind policy trying to push the matter along, but you can only take it so far before it comes economically, politically and potentially even environmentally harmful. Like so many things this seems like borderline greenwashing, pretending this is the magical solution so the CO2 problem. And it seems such a shame to potentially kill off investment in practical hybrid technology in the meantime, which may in fact be lower CO2 than a forced/rushed all-electric infrastructure.

It really is frustrating isn't it?

Edit:
These few lines from the article are particularly relevant:

At some point market dynamics will over-ride government policy anyway.

They say the only sure way of hitting the UK's emissions targets is to actually reduce the need for driving in the first place. They say the best short-term policy is to stop so many drivers buying SUVs.

And that's really quite a thing isn't it? As I recall a recent news article saying, the rise in popularity of unwieldy SUVs makes a total mockery of the push for more environmentally conscious vehicles.

[Xlucine]

Just ban chelsea tractors from next year, and use the accumulated CO2 savings to put back the date for sensible cars (i.e. plug-in hybrids, or small ones). You can allow for actual off road users buy mandating all new 4x4s must have permanently locked diffs, so if they never leave the road they fall apart

ETA: Also, set a limit on maximum headlight height. If they look stupid no-one will buy them, and it stops them blinding other drivers!

[watercooled]

Another real problem I saw with the rise in SUVs is how the bumper (as in the structural metal part, not the decorative plastic bit) is substantially higher which has consequences with regard to collision safety with cars.

The thing is though, I would have thought there was some pressure to move away from worse-by-design vehicles given how the likes of the EU are mandating certain fleet-average CO2 targets? Surely selling bigger and heavier cars is counter-productive in that regard? Then again if they sell substantially better I guess that would offset it to some extent.

I mean just me, personally, I don't see the attraction of a vehicle which is usually based on a car but is higher, heavier, slower, less aerodynamic, less fuel efficient, often worse ride, worse handling/driving experience, higher centre of gravity, etc. I mean I'm sure some will argue in favour of extra storage space (for the once they use it, if it's considerably different at all) and higher driving position, something I don't see the point of on UK roads.

[Apex]

HeXus, i just want to say i lub you all.

Compared to another forum where this very subject is being discussed, the comments on this one show thoughts gone into them and they aren't just a gut reaction (or that's how it appears to me)

[watercooled]

I agree it's refreshing to see mostly reasoned opinion and debate on serious issues. It's easy to get very emotional on such matters, but that usually just ends in wandering off-topic and personal attacks unfortunately.