We're Times Readers, Stupid.

« Why Blair’s Books Are Pants. | McCartney Divorce News - Imagine.... »

We're Times Readers, Stupid.

by fatsally @ 2008-03-18 – 18:55:15

An article and susequent comments on the Letters page of the Times attest to the fact that it is going to take more than a 4p a pint increase or 35p on a bottle of wine or a £5 gallon of petrol to make Times readers mend their binge drinking ways, or junk their planet killing, gas guzzling vehicles of choice. To echo whichever babyfaced gordon ophile uttered it, the reaction seems to be So what?
They appear to be missing the point, or are more gullible than I would have expected.
He doesn't want you to stop drinking, or smoking, or driving 15mpg cars.
He doesn't care aboout your health, the future cost to the NHS - he hopes you're all going to die young anyway - or the carbon emissions from those Chelsea tractors

HE JUST WANTS YOUR MONEY
Options:
Tags:
- news
- economy
- budget

4 Comments on We're Times Readers, Stupid.

Hide subcomments

- ianrthorpe
- 2008-03-18 @ 19:23:27
You make him soynd loyke Bob Geldof.

I'm right into the Northern Irish accent after seeing Jimmy Nesbit as Pontias Pilate.

Not a patch on Michael Palin's Pilate of course but the accent was great.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- loiswakeman
- http://lois.co.uk
- 2008-03-18 @ 19:38:32
Well, if all the smokers stopped, the Treasury would be a lot worse off - as they pay much more in tax than they cost to treat, and if they stay alive longer, they tend to get old and need more care too. So, logical not to put the tax up *too* much - geese and golden (nicotine stained) eggs.

I'm in two minds about the car tax thing. To be really effective, you ought to pile the tax onto fuel and forget the tax disc. But living where I do, most gas guzzlers are an essential piece of kit for farmers, rather than school transport options. Ever tried driving in a wet field in a Ford Mondeo?

Oh - and if they ever do institute a real green tax, they absolutely must take into account the carbon cost of ditching an old banger and replacing it with an expensive new car full of electronics, a cat, electric window winders, headlamp washers, satnav etc. The real differential between old and new cars is much less than headline fuel consumption figures might indicate. But needs work to compute of course.

And if, for instance, I can't afford owt but an old banger anyway, what to do?
- - fatsally
  - 2008-03-19 @ 16:19:52
  Absolutely!
  My plumber tells me condensing boilers aren't really efficient unless you have a big enough house, otherwise the time lapse from the water leaving the boiler to coming back into it isn't long enough for the boiler to work as it is intended, yet he is obliged to fit condensing boilers in all properties. He also makes the point that the life expectancy of a condensing boiler is about 10 years, whereas an old fashioned boiler would last at least twenty, so taking into account the cost of having to build twice as many boilers and transport them and dispose of the old boilers he is rather sceptical of the green credentials of that bit of regulation.
  I think it's the same with everything, my freezer, god bless it, is coming up for 25years old. Heaven knows what letter energy rating it would get, probably in the lower half of the alphabet, yet it does its job and hasn't needed any replacement parts or anything. (please don't die after I've been singing your praises freezer.) My recent purchase of a fridge two and a half years ago, energy rating A, has already gone through two thermostats, which between them took five visits to rectify, and quite honestly the next time it breaks I wil probably junk it cos for three hundred quid it's not worth the hassle or cost of the repair.
  Michael (?) Crighton wrote an excellent novel called 'State of Fear', in which he posits that the powers that be rule us by inducing anxiety, e.g. the spread of communism, the Cold War, global warming, international terrorism, with celebrities and talking heads encouraged to jump onto the bandwagon to spread the word about the next impending disaster and keep the public interest alive, as it were. I think the man was on to something. Our government claims to want to reduce carbon emissions, yet it isn't prepared to take a stand against proposals for a third runway at Heathrow or widening of motorways and new roads being built.
  - - ianrthorpe
    - 2008-03-19 @ 19:17:03
    Lois & sibling,
    
    I'll have to get something about this on gather.com, an American site where I an getting some really good comment threads going.
    
    They like these kind of contradictory government policies exposees.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink

We're Times Readers, Stupid.

4 Comments on We're Times Readers, Stupid.

Leave a comment (Login)