Protests don't change anything over here because they lack the volume of support needed to effect change, and also because of the negative belief that they won't change anything. Or at least that's the way I see them.Originally Posted by usxhe190
Having said that though, I think I agree
I agree with the general sentiments of Nick, but it allways gets me that these fuel protests work in such a way that they limit supply and so the oil companies now are able to charge much more per litre pushing the fuel prices up. If its the tax that the protest is at then the government should be the target not the oil companies.
I have a 70 mile round trip to work, I would car share if the option was there, unfortunatley all of the people I work with live more locally to the compay site,
The problem I face is that, I could not get a better paid job or better hours nearer to home (mon-thurs) and the fact that I do not have to drive to work on a Friday is a plus both socially and financially
Of course, I would welcome a cut on fuel tax but, if that were to happen, we would get taxed more on other things,
As far as I see now, the government seem to see driving as a vice along side cigarettes and alcohol and tax us so.
iv been trying to use my car as little as possible lately, simply because it doesnt do well fuel economy wise in our new area (just moved house)
My old typical journey involved maybe 90% A road/dual carriage way....id get 200miles out of half a tank of fuel...which is about £30 worth.....
Now I can drive for half an hour in any direction from my house and not break 30mph...and its all town driving......atm Im lucky if I get 100 miles from a half tank
100 miles for £30 is pretty damn expensive...
Wow this is fun!Protests don't change anything over here because they lack the volume of support needed to effect change, and also because of the negative belief that they won't change anything. Or at least that's the way I see them.
Having said that though, I think I agree
I was trying to make the point that government departments are not *necessarily* overstaffed. When Revenue and Customs were merged, thousands of jobs were removed. Some parts of HMRC are now struggling to get their job done. Many government departments are wasteful, but that is the nature of government, the challenge is to reduce the waste to a minimum (through good management and possibly competition).
The country can afford the Olympic games. £12 billion is clearly an astronomical amount of money but it does not all get spent in one budget. The place is not in such a mess that this expenditure will ruin us. The idea is meant to be that the games provide investment and lasting infrastructure, such as housing and transport after they are finished. The millennium dome was an expensive disaster. The only thing I can say in its defence is that at least it was an attempt to do something a bit different. The country would be a boring place if we were all utilitarians, with the aim of getting the most "utility" out of every single pound.
The quote "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is still completely true. However it's totally wrong to say that all politicians are just out to make money. Gordon Brown will not be a wealthy man by the time he leaves power, and he is clearly not there to make money. The same is true for the conservatives who come from ordinary backgrounds if they get elected. All political parties will have scandals by the time they have spent this long in office. But accepting dodgy campaign funds is a far cry from stealing taxpayers money in my view.
The majority of the policies of any UK government are formed and shaped by public opinion. They listen to us because we vote them in and out. Its not perfect, but I'm unable to see an obviously better alternative. They do listen to protest. The major example (of the public being ignored) is the Iraq war, and that happened largely because of Tony Blair's determination to be involved, not because of politicians in general ignoring the public.
The reason influential protests do not happen often in this country is because the place is fairly stable and most people are fairly satisfied. It's basically as simple as that.
I feel embarrassed writing essays like this on a tech website, but your negativity is getting me down. I hear the same things in "real life": a whole load of moaning when the majority of us live very very comfortable lives compared to most of the rest of the world.
Most people have 4 x 4's to show off. Especially all the ones who live in a city and are miles from any countryside!! They should make a special tax up for 4 x 4 owners!!! Unless of course they are farmers etc.
I must remember to top up the car tomorrow!!
People keep complaining that 4x4s are used by city dwellers and are nowhere near the Countryside.
OK that's a viable point, but you can put that argument to anything.
What's the point of a car that goes over 30 if you live in a town?
What’s the point of a Porsche if you don't live on a racing track?
What's the point of having more than one bedroom in your house/flat if you are single?
The list goes on.
What about if you just like the look of 4x4s, isn't that reason enough to own one?
I think so.
No, I don't own one before you ask.
Life is like Computing, just when you get it all working properly, Bits need replacing
And thus the problem with Joe Public. The culture of contentment, or more cynically, the lack of imagination to believe that life could be better. The power of negative thinking has been lost.The reason influential protests do not happen often in this country is because the place is fairly stable and most people are fairly satisfied. It's basically as simple as that.
I feel embarrassed writing essays like this on a tech website, but your negativity is getting me down. I hear the same things in "real life": a whole load of moaning when the majority of us live very very comfortable lives compared to most of the rest of the world.
As for the last sentence, not one I entirely disagree with, but it's still the same conservative argument that defends the way things are, rather than looking at how things could be. In itself I find it quite a negative statement as it presupposes this is the best things can get, and if this is the best things can get, why bother doing anything.
Tiresome as it sounds, people aren't moaning enough. No change ever happened because people were positive to begin with.
Just to add one more:People keep complaining that 4x4s are used by city dwellers and are nowhere near the Countryside.
OK that's a viable point, but you can put that argument to anything.
What's the point of a car that goes over 30 if you live in a town?
What’s the point of a Porsche if you don't live on a racing track?
What's the point of having more than one bedroom in your house/flat if you are single?
The list goes on.
What about if you just like the look of 4x4s, isn't that reason enough to own one?
I think so.
No, I don't own one before you ask.
What's the point in modern existence when we could all dwell in caves and live off the fat of the land? No industrial-capitalist production, no consumerist society, no climate change. Simple really.
DeSean, I would love to be as optimistic as you about our government but this is my opinion after being through so many governments:Wow this is fun!
I was trying to make the point that government departments are not *necessarily* overstaffed. When Revenue and Customs were merged, thousands of jobs were removed. Some parts of HMRC are now struggling to get their job done. Many government departments are wasteful, but that is the nature of government, the challenge is to reduce the waste to a minimum (through good management and possibly competition).
The country can afford the Olympic games. £12 billion is clearly an astronomical amount of money but it does not all get spent in one budget. The place is not in such a mess that this expenditure will ruin us. The idea is meant to be that the games provide investment and lasting infrastructure, such as housing and transport after they are finished. The millennium dome was an expensive disaster. The only thing I can say in its defence is that at least it was an attempt to do something a bit different. The country would be a boring place if we were all utilitarians, with the aim of getting the most "utility" out of every single pound.
The quote "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is still completely true. However it's totally wrong to say that all politicians are just out to make money. Gordon Brown will not be a wealthy man by the time he leaves power, and he is clearly not there to make money. The same is true for the conservatives who come from ordinary backgrounds if they get elected. All political parties will have scandals by the time they have spent this long in office. But accepting dodgy campaign funds is a far cry from stealing taxpayers money in my view.
The majority of the policies of any UK government are formed and shaped by public opinion. They listen to us because we vote them in and out. Its not perfect, but I'm unable to see an obviously better alternative. They do listen to protest. The major example (of the public being ignored) is the Iraq war, and that happened largely because of Tony Blair's determination to be involved, not because of politicians in general ignoring the public.
The reason influential protests do not happen often in this country is because the place is fairly stable and most people are fairly satisfied. It's basically as simple as that.
I feel embarrassed writing essays like this on a tech website, but your negativity is getting me down. I hear the same things in "real life": a whole load of moaning when the majority of us live very very comfortable lives compared to most of the rest of the world.
1. gov depts ARE wasteful because they have no competition and no time deadlines.
2. £12bill for games IS wasteful - given the fact that it was budgeted at a MUCH lower cost.
3. all politicans wants power and money. They dont get "much" from just government salary and so they have "indirect and direct" relationships with various "people" and "companies" so that they earn more and stay longer in office.
4. MAJORITY of policies are NOT shaped by public opinion. SOME policies are. But the most important policies are shaped by powerful allies (USA) or powerful individuals and companies, not the public. These people has a HUGE day to day impact on the UK economy. Public only has impact before an election because there are too many voices/opinions.
I think fuel taxation should be higher (and I drive 100 miles or more a day). Cars that arn't at least in the top 2 economy/byproduct classes should be heavily taxed, perhaps less so if the are old.
To err is human. To really foul things up ... you need a computer.
DeSean, I would love to be as optimistic as you about our government but this is my opinion after being through so many governments:
1. gov depts ARE wasteful because they have no competition and no time deadlines. - lol @ no deadlines. that comedic, the amount of performance reporting we have to do in local government is ridiculous. And I'd like to see how you could be a competative market in the civil service.
2. £12bill for games IS wasteful - given the fact that it was budgeted at a MUCH lower cost. - £12 billion is sod all to the country's wealth, to say Britain can't afford it means that only about 5 countries in the world can do.
3. all politicans wants power and money. They dont get "much" from just government salary and so they have "indirect and direct" relationships with various "people" and "companies" so that they earn more and stay longer in office. - yes all politicians are evil. You never thought that some might do it because they want to make a difference. Despite what Mark Thomas and Michael Moore think not all selfless do-gooders became 'comedians' and documentary makers.
4. MAJORITY of policies are NOT shaped by public opinion. SOME policies are. But the most important policies are shaped by powerful allies (USA) or powerful individuals and companies, not the public. These people has a HUGE day to day impact on the UK economy. Public only has impact before an election because there are too many voices/opinions. - lol its tin foil hat time... alot of policies are shaped by public opinion, but obviously pressure groups, the influence of our allies, treat obligations etc all shape our policies as well.
you may think Desean is a bit optimistic about our govt, well you have full blown OTT scepticism
Why the bleeding **** should older cars which are just as fuel efficient as newer bigger/more powerful cars be taxed less ?
All Hail the AACS : 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
espesually as when you think of the carbon used to build the car, is probably more than it will ever burn in fuel.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Because you can afford it?People keep complaining that 4x4s are used by city dwellers and are nowhere near the Countryside.
OK that's a viable point, but you can put that argument to anything.
What's the point of a car that goes over 30 if you live in a town?
What’s the point of a Porsche if you don't live on a racing track?
What's the point of having more than one bedroom in your house/flat if you are single?
The list goes on.
What about if you just like the look of 4x4s, isn't that reason enough to own one?
I think so.
No, I don't own one before you ask.
If I could afford a Porsche and live with the cost of running one then I would buy one, why not? Its my hard earned cash, I am buying it legally so there shouldnt be a problem true?
Its not wrong to want nice things in life, its just hard when your faced with so many sky high costs, which are totally crap.
.: Rishi :.
They're currently taxed more. It annoys me - my diesel outputs something like 123g/km CO2, but because it's old I have to pay a flat rate some 70 quid more than the same car a few years newer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote