Another By-election, another u-turn

… and no doubt they’ll be telling us in future how much better off we are because of the postponment of the planned 2p rise in fuel duty. No doubt, also, we are expected to be grateful that in a few months, petrol will be only 130p/litre and not 132p.

So, when the Conservatives propose cuts in fuel duty at times when fuel prices are high, it’s

“a dishonest gimmick which would mean the Tories would have to hike up taxes somewhere else or would mean a massive hole in the public finances.

“Either George Osborne doesn’t understand the way tax revenues work, or he’s prepared to play fast and loose with the public finances for the sake of a good headline.”

But when Labour postpone increases in fuel duty at time when fuel prices are high, it’s

“the right thing to do to help motorists and to help businesses.”

The ever-consistent Lib Dems, however are pouring scorn on both moves. You remember the Lib Dems: they were suggesting tax cuts a few months ago, and are the same party that wants/doesn’t want (delete deopending on day of week) a referendum on the EU.

Older, More Polluting Cars

“Older more polluting cars” has become a stock phrase of late, particularly with the storm brewing over the backdating of the road tax increases. Our dear national broadcaster used the phrase at the top of the news this morning, saying something like “Labour rebels and Conservatives are criticising the increase in tax on older more polluting cars”. This is a rather pejorative turn of phrase - why couldn’t they just say “road tax increase” or similar? It’s OK, though, I’m not going to launch into another rant about BBC bias and climate change, tempting though it is.

The arguments centre on the effects of the increase on poorer drivers and families, and rightly so, but in addition the blanket assumption that older cars are more polluting is wrong. My first car was 1961 Triumph Herald convertible. I doubt it had particularly clean emissions. “Aha!” says the tree-hugger, “it’s an older, more polluting car!” Er, no, because it used to go out fairly occasionally, and so contributed less CO2 in a typical year than my everyday (then) new Golf. Yet even if it wasn’t a second car, the most significant way in which my old Triumph was less polluting was that it was an older car – i.e. it was still on the road. Cars have the greatest impact on the environment when they are made, and when they are scrapped. Even when the old girl does come to the end of her life, as an older car with less plastics, no catalytic converter, no coolant filled air con system, and not much of anything else, most of the car will be easily recyclable steel.

Now, I concede that the Herald would be exempt from road tax anyway (though for how long?), and in any case is an extreme example (the road tax increase are only being backdated to 2001 cars) but the blind assumption that older cars are the chariot of the devil is one that should be challenged, if only on the main point that looking after an older car and keeping it on the road is the best thing an owner can do for the environment.

Of course, in truth the road tax changes have nothing to do with the environment – after all, what would they be trying to achieve? Clearly we can’t turn back time to not purchase the vehicles, so it must be trying to force us to take older cars off the road, which means in most cases scrapping them, and generating demand for new ones to be built - a double whammy for the environment. Yet surely Alistair Darling couldn’t be using the “climate change agenda” as an excuse just to raise environmentally irrelevant taxes?

Car Rants and Ramblings

Polite disclaimer – beauty is in the eye for the beholder, so owners of Jag estates, E-type 2+2s, VW Passats, etc, should not take this post personally.

It’s time. The old girl has done well for 13 years. Been to every corner of the country (including Ireland), served the cause through numerous election campaigns, but now it’s time for a change. Something bigger, and circumstances demand an estate.

Now estates have been on a rollercoaster of popularity in recent times, with the rise of MPVs and 4×4s, yet seem to be the more civilised of the trio of family-carrying options. Just as with 4×4s, though, the estate versions of popular saloons and hatchbacks don’t always work.

For instance, a Jaguar estate is … wrong. It’s nothing to do with its relative practicality, or the level of equipment or quality of its cabin, or the pros and cons of the fact that it is basically a Mondeo with a Coventry-built bodyshell (are they still Coventry-built?)

No, sorry, the very idea of a Jaguar estate is an affront to nature. It’s a mouse with an ear growing out of its back, or a LibDem with a ministerial red box. The fact that it is “just … no” shouldn’t require any further explanation because it’s plain to see. So, Clarkson-like, I will dismiss the idea with a snort of derision and move on. Next thing you know, Jag will be making 4×4 “off-roaders”. They should stick to making decent saloons and successors to the most beautiful car ever made, the E-type roadster. They should equally try to avoid making another one of the silliest proportioned cars ever made, the E-type 2+2 (fixed head coupe). What a difference putting on the wrong type of roof can make to a car.

Which brings us back to estates. Without boring you with the ins and outs of our decision making process, we’ve narrowed it down to the Audi, VW or … another Volvo.

Yes, yes, a Conservative accountant driving a Volvo. Go on, laugh – I’ve been driving one for the last 13 years, and my father has had his for the last 35 years. From new. Not that Gothenburg’s former ball bearing company hasn’t had its share of clangers, of course. In the 1970’s they had the horrid Volvo 66 – a re-badged Daf from the time the Dutch firm was swallowed up, which visually owed much to the dear old Triumph Herald – after all, both cars shared the same designer in Michelotti. Earlier, there was the P1800, a decent looker made famous by Roger Moore in The Saint, and made infamous for while by the dodgy job that Jensen did in throwing the things together, before production was moved back to Sweden with the P1800S.

As for the Audi or VW – we can’t help but think that no matter how good the thing looks inside or out (well, maybe the “outside bit” won’t apply to the Passat), and how many toys it might have, we already have the essential car (floorpan, running gear, power unit) in our workhorse Skoda Octavia. For goodness sake, look at the engine – it’s got the VW Audi logos stamped on it!

OK, I’ll get me anorak – it’s the one that smells of petrol….

They don’t make ‘em like they used to

Enthsiasts of the more common makes of classic car will have been long aware of the possibilities of building a “brand new” model of their beloved wheels, given the wide availability of spares for the most popular (MGBs, Spitfires, etc.). Then again, there is the other route to a “new” classic, whereby over time enough is replaced to bring into question how original a car is (in the manner of the broom which has had four new heads and two new handles). But I’d rather have a TR5 that runs well than a rusting immobile museum piece.

Anyway, I don’t think there are any plans to run this particular classic, recently assembled from spares.