Auto Insurance :: View topic - Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Auto Insurance
Auto Insurance

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Auto Insurance Forum Index -> Classic Cars

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

:Jerry:
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

"Andrew Marshall" <g8bur@g8bur.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZbpalDBNFFFIFwBo@g8bur.demon.co.uk...

Quote:

snip
My 'modern' - an '89 Sierra diesel estate - will never be a classic
by any stretch of the imagination,

Shush, don't tell that to Practical 'Classic' magazine...

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Adrian
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Quote:

No. People chose to buy a product, some of the profit from which is
used to advertise (possibly on TV), one doesn't have to buy the
product - tax doesn't work like that.

Not quite that simple.

The product would be considerably cheaper without the overheads of
advertising. <snip irrelivance

But no one is forcing you to buy the product. As I said, tax doesn't
work like that.

Shame every single major retailer chain advertises on TV, as well as the
vast majority of their products being from corporates who advertise on TV.

Besides, it's hardly an irrelevance that the BBC is actually much more
financially efficient than commercial TV.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Chris Bolus
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
<dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

The date being 26 Apr 2008, Chris Bolus <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com
decided to write:

One of my Minis is going to get a K series in the near future. Nothing
to do with its taxation class; I happen to have the car, it needs a new
lump, and I want a reasonably straighforward auto conversion in it (the
A-series auto is dire).

Austin Rover did produce a K-series Mini prototype. I think it was
called Minki.

There were several, the development story at
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?r50storyf.htm is quite
fascinating. There is more along the same lines at
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado15storyf.htm

Quote:

Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up
the power.
It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third in

under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually unobtainable.
I also converted one to manual due to a failed gearbox; I didn't really
want to, tried everything I could think of short of replacing the 'box,
but as the car is eventually destined you my younger daughter to learn
in, that seemed pointless.

It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if it's
cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine means
that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern oils.

Issigonis himself, in his retirement, worked on developing a "gearless"
version of the Mini. I think he would have approved of the CVT used in
the Metro!
--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email)
------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------
--1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Richard Porter
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

The date being 27 Apr 2008, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
decided to write:

Quote:

"Richard Porter" <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:fd744a964f.news@user.minijem.plus.com...
The date being 26 Apr 2008, "Dave Plowman (News)"
dave@davenoise.co.uk> decided to write:

Perhaps you should pay a TV licence proportional to the amount you watch
too. It's a very similar cost.

No, the Government should pay it out of general taxation, but still on
a per household basis. That way it would save all the costs of
administration, collection and enforcement which greatly exceed the
cost of giving a licence to the very few households without a tv. It
would also get around the iPlayer problem.

No, that would be the worst solution, I would prefer the BBC to become
fully commercial before allowing it funding to be at the whim of the
incumbent political party - "Do NOT broadcast that exposé on us
receiving back-handers, otherwise expect to loose 50pc of your funding
from next month"...

That's not what I'm saying. The BBC should still get the agreed fee
per household with no strings. The government negotiates the licence
fee as it is. In fact the BBC should be told to cut out all the
advertising (including trails) and cater for the greatest possible
number of interests rather than going for instantaneous ratings. There
are plenty of commercial channels if that's what you want.

--
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Richard Porter
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

The date being 27 Apr 2008, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
decided to write:

Quote:

"Richard Porter" <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:353f48964f.news@user.minijem.plus.com...
The date being 26 Apr 2008, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID
decided to write:

That is why VED should be scrapped (except for a nominal fee payable
by all [1]) and fuel duty raised, the tax will then be a proportional
charge for all.

[1] to check for MOT and insurance, although even this is becoming
outdates now that the three databases 'talk' to each other.

No you don't need that check. The MoT can check the insurance, and you
could have an MoT disc or new car disc to display on the windscreen.
You could have an insurance sticker for that matter.

Err, one doesn't need insurance on the car to MOT it, the car can be
trailered to the testing station, the vehicle can be driven on trade
plates or the car could have been sitting on the garage forecourt for
the last few weeks or months.

Yes, that's true, but as you mentioned there really isn't any need to
link MoT and insurance because the Police can now check both on the
computer. A small, non-removable windscreen sticker for each instead
of the tax disc would provide a visual check and backup in the event
of a database error (which is not unheard of).

--
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Steve Firth
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

There are plenty of commercial channels if that's what you want.

You still have to pay for the channel(s) that you don't want via a
licence fee. The BBC should be made subscription only and that's
entirely possible when DVB completely displaces analogue. The argument
for having a licence fee will be invalid once access to the BBC can be
controlled by encryption.

If the BBC really believes that it offers the best TV and Radio let it
broadcast pay-for-view and that will prove the case.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

:Jerry:
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

"Chris Bolus" <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> wrote in message
news:3hq814lmi2snrfrqrmvlkof8bjtg2ij032@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

snip

Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up
the power.
It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third
in
under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually
unobtainable.

It was never that fragile whilst in production!

<snip>

Quote:

It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if
it's

I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road
test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like
dropping the clutch.

Quote:

cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine
means
that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern
oils.

Then don't run it on modern oils, nothing wrong with a good old 20/50
[1] or even one of the (then) specified straight grades, and don't
skimp on oil and filter changes. It sounds to me if you have a serious
valve block issue, or possibly a worn oil pump - IIRC it used to be
possible to take a oil pressure reading from the gearbox.

[1] the same went for the manual box, they didn't like anything other
than plain vanilla flavoured oils, we used nothing but 20/50 in them.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

:Jerry:
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

"Richard Porter" <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:90f29d964f.news@user.minijem.plus.com...

Quote:

The date being 27 Apr 2008, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID
decided to write:

"Richard Porter" <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:fd744a964f.news@user.minijem.plus.com...
The date being 26 Apr 2008, "Dave Plowman (News)"
dave@davenoise.co.uk> decided to write:

Perhaps you should pay a TV licence proportional to the amount
you watch
too. It's a very similar cost.

No, the Government should pay it out of general taxation, but
still on
a per household basis. That way it would save all the costs of
administration, collection and enforcement which greatly exceed
the
cost of giving a licence to the very few households without a tv.
It
would also get around the iPlayer problem.

No, that would be the worst solution, I would prefer the BBC to
become
fully commercial before allowing it funding to be at the whim of
the
incumbent political party - "Do NOT broadcast that exposé on us
receiving back-handers, otherwise expect to loose 50pc of your
funding
from next month"...

That's not what I'm saying. The BBC should still get the agreed fee
per household with no strings. The government negotiates the licence
fee as it is.

Three points;
1/. The above would make those who don't have a TV, pay for what they
don't use.
2/. Allow those who don't pay tax to use what they don't need, for
free.
3/. ATM a *cross parliament* - none party line - debate decides on the
amount of funding the BBC receives via the TVL (the DfCM&S only
suggest a figure), not HMG, what you are suggesting is that HMG would
decide as part of the annual budget settlement, that tends to be very
party political (voting down a budget package tends to lead into a
'confidence' vote the very next day, turkeys don't normally vote for
Christmas...), allowing HMG to, at their whim, to remove your
suggested 'ring fence' and thus have undue influence on the BBC as the
BBC would be receiving funding from the exchequer and not from the
collection of the TVL (which is indirect).

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dave Plowman (News)
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

In article <1ig1z20.zhfiwm9wyl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig166a.p7i5r3wm1i5fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It exists for
two reasons, so that politicians can prove to themselves that they
have power over ordinary people's lives and to put money into the
Treasury to pay for the stupid ideas of politicians.

Thanks for confirming you're an even bigger fool than I first though.

Thanks for confirming that you can only respond with personal abuse.

Not abuse - merely a fact if you actually believe what you wrote.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dave Plowman (News)
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

In article <ZbpalDBNFFFIFwBo@g8bur.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Marshall <g8bur@g8bur.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

My 67 Elf is a daily driver. Tax is irrelevant; I just enjoy driving it
more than most of my other cars.

Same with my '70 Minor 1000 4-door saloon, though it's temporarily off
the road until a replacement NSF chassis leg can be welded into place.
It wouldn't bother me unduly if I had to tax it. My 'modern' - an '89
Sierra diesel estate - will never be a classic by any stretch of the
imagination, but I'll keep that too, as it's reliable and long-legged
and electrically quiet (for mobile amateur radio). I far prefer driving
the Minor, though, and may well take it on holiday, to Wales probably,
this year instead of the Sierra.

Absolutely. I doubt there's anyone reading this group where the cost of
the VED is a serious consideration of owning a car.
That some choose to say 'what about the poor' means they're just fudging
the issue.

--
*If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

:Jerry:
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fv24nr$g31$1@registered.motzarella.org...

Quote:

No. People chose to buy a product, some of the profit from which is
used to advertise (possibly on TV), one doesn't have to buy the
product - tax doesn't work like that.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dave Plowman (News)
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

In article <fv21t2$1h7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
:Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

Quote:

"Chris Bolus" <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> wrote in message
news:3hq814lmi2snrfrqrmvlkof8bjtg2ij032@4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

snip

Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up
the power.
It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third
in
under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually
unobtainable.

It was never that fragile whilst in production!

My memory says they were. A relative had a new VDP 1300 with one which
gave lots of problems. And the trade weren't surprised. Sharing engine oil
and auto fluid seemed a daft idea to me at the time since autos like clean
fluid.

Quote:

snip

It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if
it's

I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road
test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like
dropping the clutch.

That's because it didn't have a torque convertor but a fluid flywheel
instead - doesn't cushion changes as well, as many an old Rolls or Merc
owner would testify too also.

Quote:

cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine
means
that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern
oils.

Then don't run it on modern oils, nothing wrong with a good old 20/50
[1] or even one of the (then) specified straight grades, and don't
skimp on oil and filter changes. It sounds to me if you have a serious
valve block issue, or possibly a worn oil pump - IIRC it used to be
possible to take a oil pressure reading from the gearbox.

[1] the same went for the manual box, they didn't like anything other
than plain vanilla flavoured oils, we used nothing but 20/50 in them.

Strangely most BMC 'boxes work rather better on Dexron. Of course you
couldn't use this on a Mini, etc.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dave Plowman (News)
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

In article <1ig2abg.6gibv0ro5bsmN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

There are plenty of commercial channels if that's what you want.

You still have to pay for the channel(s) that you don't want via a
licence fee. The BBC should be made subscription only and that's
entirely possible when DVB completely displaces analogue. The argument
for having a licence fee will be invalid once access to the BBC can be
controlled by encryption.

If the BBC really believes that it offers the best TV and Radio let it
broadcast pay-for-view and that will prove the case.

I'm inclined to agree. They waste too much money on trying to 'keep up'
rather than just giving the public what they do best.

--
*Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

:Jerry:
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fv265v$o34$1@registered.motzarella.org...

Quote:

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> gurgled happily, sounding much
like
they were saying:

Three points;
1/. The above would make those who don't have a TV, pay for what
they
don't use.

Just like they do for commercial TV stations now, y'mean?

No. People chose to buy a product, some of the profit from which is
used
to advertise (possibly on TV), one doesn't have to buy the
product - tax
doesn't work like that.

Not quite that simple.

The product would be considerably cheaper without the overheads of
advertising. <snip irrelivance

But no one is forcing you to buy the product. As I said, tax doesn't
work like that.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Steve Firth
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

In article <1ig1z20.zhfiwm9wyl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig166a.p7i5r3wm1i5fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It exists for
two reasons, so that politicians can prove to themselves that they
have power over ordinary people's lives and to put money into the
Treasury to pay for the stupid ideas of politicians.

Thanks for confirming you're an even bigger fool than I first though.

Thanks for confirming that you can only respond with personal abuse.

Not abuse - merely a fact if you actually believe what you wrote.

It was abuse, pure and simple.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Display posts from previous:

	Auto Insurance Forum Index -> Classic Cars	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum