I don't bloody believe it!  Someone who looks like one of the Marx Brothers, who probably cannot figure out the answer to X² x Y has been given the job of running the nations coffers.  I'm referring to Alistair Darling of course and the mega stitch up of the population and most rudely the UK's motorists.  Well, he's the front man and spokesman but I point the blame finger to the Sir Humphreys.

Already this Chancellor has spent billions of our money on propping up a privately owned bank who through negligence or total greed invested too much in one chicken basket.  Now we have had to buy the bloody thing just to break even.

In his first and hopefully last budget he as Chancellor said he was giving a stabilising budget.  In fact he was giving nothing in reality. Here's a couple of items that have really niggled me.

From this April, key workers such as teachers and nurses, and first time buyers, will be able to borrow money from new-shared equity schemes.

 Sorry, if you are lucky enough to have acquired a shared equity home after April and especially if you are a key worker - teacher, nurse - he will let you off the stamp duty and you can borrow more.  Key Workers?  Most of us are "key" workers - if I don't work all night you won't have your ordered items by next day - better change the definition to favoured workers.

I am proposing a major reform to Vehicle Excise Duty to encourage manufacturers to produce cleaner cars and by introducing new bands, there will be an incentive to encourage drivers to choose the least polluting car," Darling told parliament.  And as a second stage for new cars, from April 2010 there will be a new first-year rate based on carbon dioxide emissions of the car. Cars that emit less than the proposed 130 grams per kilometre European standard of carbon dioxide emissions will pay no car tax at all in the first year. But a higher first year rate will be introduced on the most polluting cars.

This means to you and me and owner of nearly every model of car on the road a doubling in road tax. It means he is telling you he wants you all to drive tiny Japanese built cars with an engine capacity of 850cc.  Problem is they don't exist. Yet!

Now I don't wish to be branded a hypocrite so I will tell you upfront that my car weighs near two tonnes, built in Birmingham, England and is powered by an extremely refined 3.2 litre engine.  My wifes car is a tiny 2000 model Hyundai 998cc.  I only use my car for social use which is probably once to twice a week, usually weekends, the odd holiday and I appreciate the utter comfort of it.  My wife's car takes her to work and back and then takes me to work at night.  It rarely gets parked up.  What a dear little workhorse.  The big grief here is this even this little car generates more than 130g/km.  In fact the latest 2008 model which is 1.1 litre with the latest technology only just fits under the bottom limit at 128g/km.

So your popular family models like Mondeos, Vectras and MPV's will get wacked by this reform.  Using the popularist spout of "green" policies this is just another devious stealth tax of the working man.  There is a limit to the amount of emissions that can be controlled, the Chancellor knows this, Sir Humphrey definitely does so everyone pays.  Targetting "gas guzzlers" they cry.  B*****ks!  Gassers are your Ferrari's, Lambo's all Porsche's especially the Cayenne Turbo, most petrol BMW's, Range Rover Sports (mummy's school runabout) Rollers and Mercedes 500 S Class's.  Hit them I hear you cry, they can afford it.

No can do, because, 1. they are funding the Labour Party through proxy.  2. There is only a few thousand of them so wouldn't generate that much cash.  So the next best thing is include virtually all other popular family motors and presto!  An infinite money box.  More readies to squander on computer systems that don't work, next years 30% payrise and thereafter plus new kitchens and bathrooms for all MP's.

If he announced a doubling of income tax or VAT we would all rise up and lynch him off the Tower Bridge.  Mrs. Thatchers downfall and retraction of the Poll Tax shows that people can change government policies if they are totally wrong or misguided.

Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister

"Don't worry Minister" Sir Humphrey would have replied calmly." We'll create a diversion, if this goes belly up, for example stir the rail unions up or meddle with airport workers hours,  and nobody will notice."  At the same time the Sir Humphrey's would have thought. "I am not worried if it does go wrong.  I've covered my ass, some office manager will get the blame and though Ministers come and go I will still be here till generous pension time and endless carefree days on the golf course."

Something else I've noticed or should I say lack of.  Where are the Motoring Organisations?  Where is Mr. AA?  Very quiet in fact or keeping their heads down.  If he had jacked up fuel by 5p they would have been on every news programme for the next week.

The real facts here are we must reduce pollution of our atmosphere.  We must reduce carbon emissions. Oil is not limitless.  The Arabs oil is running out, they know this too so now they buy hotels, sea-ports and leisure industries, but there is plenty more in Siberia and Canada but with the former we are not sure how secure this is judging by their antics with natural gas. 

 There is a bottom limit to emissions from any combustion of fossil fuels.  I think technology has done as much as it can here.  Yes, you can encourage or force all manufacturers of vehicles to design the best engines and management systems but again there is only so much they can do.

People will always want some vehicle or other to suit their purpose or way of living and car makers oblige by large choices of design and engine size.  What will happen if tax penalties on purchasing or licencing is hiked up grossly, sales will reduce,  car makers will cut back on production, less choice for consumers, jobs will go, less people with money to spend so sales fall back even further.  This is reality because it's been happening at General Motors and Ford USA just for starters.

So what do government want us to do?  Everyone drives a similar car - Nissan Micra for instance?  This sounds like Russia some years back.  Why is it we have gone so far forward yet now they want to return us to before the "industrial revolution", or if the "Greens" get their way back to the "Stone Age".  Or the worst scenario,  that only those with real money can have cars which means more petrol for them to go swanning around.  And the rest of us?  On foot or horse!  Sounds like 1920 all over again.

Ministers and the Sir Humphreys take note.  Until we can develop really efficient light weight high capacity batteries or better still hydrogen fuel cells and cheaply too, fossil fuels will be here to stay or till it runs out.

Here is a choice of fuel for those "greens".  Hydrogen, extremely cold liquid hydrogen in a cylinder tank in your future car.  Exhaust emissions - Water.  However, my little chunky jumper friends, if there is a problem with the tank,  this fuel cell will become a rocket engine which will power you from 0 to 3,000 kph through the ass of that fly that just hit the windscreen to eternity.

Another choice.  Batteries.  A new battery has been developed recently and is being used to power model aircraft and similar.  It's called the "LIPO" (Lithium Polymer) light and compact.  Can allow the use of very high current demands at relatively low voltages.  Problem here is for example, an 11.1 volt battery  lasts 10 mins approx on demand and at least two hours to recharge carefully using a cell balancing charger.  Any short cuts to this requirement is overheat and simultaneous fire or complete batterey failure.  So they are out of the question for now then in cars!

One more choice, the "greens" will love this one!  Nuclear power unit.  Yes! Atomic energy under the backseat of your vehicle.  Generates heat, converts water into steam, steam drives turbine, turbine drives generator, power to motor and the wheels. Perfect!  Cons:  Making it small enough.  Another?  Who would like to sit on a potential nuclear bomb.  Pros: No carbon emissions.  A little water from condensor.  Possibly silent running.  Problem?  Unlikely to become a production reality until 2100.

So I think I will stick with oil for now.  In the meantime let's ALL get together and tell this Chancellor what we think of his latest sting to the working man.

Last update : 17-03-2008 10:17

Average user rating

No rating