91Èȱ¬

So Brown failed again then.

(Just trying to get in early before the usual flood of diatribes).

Well, I can just imagine that Mugabe et al are quaking at the thought of such dreadful measures.

Just like other nations where 'harsh' sanctions have been imposed, it'll stop them in their tracks, push them to contemplate long and hard about their lives, where they've gone wrong, look at what they need to improve about themselves, etc etc.

What's more, there's an irony to these sanctions coming from the Nation (with it's partners in crime) that brought you the rigged election in 2001, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, torture (by it's own agents and with assistance from third party countries), unwavering support of dictatorial regimes (eg Saudi, Egypt), etc etc.

Ridiculous!

It seems that in Brown's governement, departments cant see eye to eye. In todays "Daily Politics", it was confirmed that the 91Èȱ¬ Office are sending Zimbambian immigrants- that are in danger of their lives - back into Mugabes hands.

This at the same time as the Great Leader and the Foreign Office lambast Mugabe, and call him a tyrant. Which he is.

The Immigration service (part of the home office), say their hands are tied by government policy. Some policy! Some government.

Whats that someone has said something about Robert Mugabe?

Gosh how impressive.

If they continue to take things at this pace, the problem will go away - Mugabe will have died of old age.

It was only in May that UK was about to start deporting people back there



Have they included a statement about how good motherhood and apple pie are?

#3 Flugart

You are so correct in your assessment. It is heartbreaking that the Zimbabean refugees who have managed to reach these shores are so coldly treated by the UK government. This includes both black and white refugees. I say government, because I cannot believe the average citizen is so cruel. What makes it even more bitter, is if they were terrorists, in "danger" of being tried in their native lands, they would find sanctuary and financial support here, with the blessing of High Court Judges, such as Lord Phillips.

Mightyangela, you've hit the crucial nail on the head. British Governments no longer carry out what the electorate want ... possibly Wilson, for all his faults, was the last who led a government that tried to reflect the wishes of the people .... successive governments since then have striven to give the people what they think they ought to have, and the result has been alienation from the political process on a massive scale.... and politicians wring their hands and tell us how dreadful it is that only about 50% of the electorate bother to vote.
Mugabe is truly a nasty piece of work and the crucial question is no longer whether the evil bastard should be bumped off, but how to do it .... sadly, the worlds leaders will never do it .... and to some extent, the left with their bleatings about the immorality of regime change, must accept some of the blame for it.

Good. At least something positive has happened.

They now need to follow this up and rapidly get concensus at the United Nations to back up the will of the international community with force if necessary.

Please - no Tony and George go it alone faux-legal wars this time though.

#1 (jimbrandt) in a word, yes, he's failed again, although I do detect a hint of sarcasm.

Well, here's another bit for you..... wow, isn't Gordon Brown a fantastic prime minister. Oh, and let's not forget how great a chancellor he must have been now that we're enjoying his 'great' legacy. Oh yes, you can tell he's always had the best interests of the country in mind.

Although I fully support Gordon's desire to save people unecessarily dieing from Malaria or women in child birth.

I'd like to suggest that this position he trys to place himself in as a figure on the world stage is hollow.

Since 1985 how many milliions have we spent in Africa, how many lives have we saved, thousands? millions?.

But the problem still remains, we're saving all these people, but what about the next famine where all these people that are in better health than ever before die because their country simply can't support their numbers.

What steps have been taken to make sure the Africans don't exceed their countrys ability to support them when the rains don't come and the crops die. Because I doubt the next 'Live Aid' would be able to cope with it.

1. jimbrant

So cynical for one so young.

Browns position is tough to target.

Might be bit quite here tonight.

I'd imagine that the 91Èȱ¬ Office are tied by Government Policy over the Zimbabwean assylum seekers.

If we allow them into Britain, by definition that'd mean they're allowed anywhere in Europe now there is uninhibited migration within the EU, how many of the 27 members want to deal with an ex British colony, assylum seeking or not?

#8 extremesense: "Oh, and let's not forget how great a chancellor he must have been now that we're enjoying his 'great' legacy"

Well if ever we were so silly as to forget, we can always read the latest (May 2008)IMF report produced after detailed examination of the evidence:

"For over a decade, the United Kingdom has sustained low inflation and rapid economic growth - an exceptional achievement. More recently, the economy grew by 3 percent in 2007, and inflation returned to target after a temporary elevation. All this is the fruit of strong policies and policy frameworks, which provide a strong foundation to weather global shocks."

But of course I expect you know better.

Where is a report on WMD when we need one? Can Bush/Brown not borrow the last one on Iraq and simply tinker with it a little?
Of course, Mugabe doesn't have any oil. So nothing will happen except sanctions. And how well they worked on Iraq, apart from harming the people who suffered the most.

How funny! Or rather, how sad!

The more time Nick spends with our Great Leader and his enturage, the more he seem's to be a Brown crony, and not an impartial correspondant at all.

Will please Jimbrant and Granantidote though.

Before we get into another round of Brown bashing, let us give some credit where it is due. It is true to say that there is something of the statesman about him. He clearly does command some respect at the top table and it is not entirely undeserved.

But Brown was elected as leader of the British Labour Party and was installed as Prime Minister because of his party's parliamentary majority giving them a mandate to govern Britain. It really does not matter if you bestride the world as some kind of colossus if you can't get it right in your own back yard. He has terrible poll ratings, he would almost certainly lose an election next Thursday if there was one, the people clearly resent the intrusive monitoring of their phones and internet which has been foisted on them in the interests of national security.

Mr. Brown may be something of a global superstar but he is a hopeless prime minister. Privately, he seems to know this. At least Tony had the grace to hang in there for a while before hawking his CV round the global market. Our Gordon seems to see the stewardship of the UK not so much as a vocation as a career move.

11. Old_Rocker

This is not about unlimited immigration, which I too oppose, but help for a few thousand Zimbabwians that need temporary help.

How cynical and typical of our Great Leader to prevent the white farmers - who built up the breadbasket of southern africa - from entering Britain. Now these same folk are threatened with having their farms destroyed, or even death.

#15

I will sing a threnody for Brown with your blessing.

#17 flugart: "I will sing a threnody for Brown with your blessing."

'Requiem for an honest and successful, but ultimately unlucky, politician' might be an appropriate title.

# 8 jimbrandt: how wonderful to benefit from your endless wisdom.

Two things, jimbrandt, the first is that you've obviously been very selective in your reading of the report as it gives a fairly balance viewed - you have been more than a little selective in what you've quoted.

Secondly, the source of the information used to compile this report pre-dates it's actual publication (I would have thought that was obvious) and in economic terms we're able to see that this report is not only out of date but totally unrealistic - in many ways, it was simply wrong. And yes, I did say that the 'great' (hmmmmm, seen that before) IMF got it wrong, mind you, most people did.

By the way, I also think Thatcher and Blair were pretty dreadful although they didn't at any time raise my hopes like Brown did when he took office a year ago.

Thank you #17 and 18.

Curiously, this raises an interesting question.

History is littered with people who have excelled at the science of politics but failed to make the quantum leap to the art of statecraft. I can't actually thing of any distinguished statesmen who were hopeless politicians.

Ideas, anyone?

#19 extremesense: "you've obviously been very selective in your reading of the report as it gives a fairly balance viewed - you have been more than a little selective in what you've quoted."

Well obviously I've been selective. But the quotation is the introduction to the Report, giving the IMF's own overall view. They would hardly open their document with a summary statement that was contradicted by the totality, which you seem to accept as being balanced.

And of course the information on which the Report is based pre-dates its publication. How could it be otherwise? In the sense that things have happened since the Report was compiled, I suppose it is necessarily out of date. But the assessment of the government's 'exceptional achievement' refers to the historical record; that isn't changed by subsequent external events.

I am pleased to have been of some benefit to you, even though my own undoubted wisdom was not actually involved.

# 20, well, yes, it certainly would raise an interesting question if Brown was actually being statesmanlike and commanding respect at the top table.

Staring alongside those louts, Bush and Berlusconi, plus what's his name Bling (or is it Mr Bruni?), surely it can't be difficult to look vaguely useful????????? I thought the waiters looked impressive.

Anyway, what's he actually achieved with his his appearance at this £238m jamboree for 8?

Didn't he say something about eating leftovers and not sticking to 'best before' dates (that's the big coup). The others:

- He agreed to disagree with Russia.

- He's simply agreed with the US (what's new?) that sanctions should be imposed on Zimbabwe (and of course sanctions always hit those they're aimed at).

- He's joined the consensus in favour of continuing to chat about carbon cutting measures over lunch/dinner with drinks up until the point the become immersed in water.

Wow, what a statesman! He's amazing!

Consequently, please have some sympathy for Nick, now that he's there, he's got to write something.

flugart wrote:

The more time Nick spends with our Great Leader and his enturage, the more he seem's to be a Brown crony, and not an impartial correspondant at all.



I've heard it said, that in person Gordon Brown is quite engaging, amiable (assuming you're not Tony Blair) and does indeed have the ability to somewhat capitivate and charm his audience, afterall, he has made it through the ranks to become a senior politician.

Unfortunatly for Gordon and what will probably be a marker of his downfall is that his 'charm and charisma' (for want of better words) doesn't make it through to this side of the television screen and we the public are actually hearing what he's saying rather than what he wants us to hear.

So we can only assume that Gordon has hypnotised Nick and he'll recover once he's back on these shores and not in the heady world of International politics, Nick is, afterall, only human.

We also need to stop pretending that British politicians actually have any real say over anything, the power is no longer in Westminster and regardless of Browns posturing pretence, he is little more than a European puppet.

# jimbrandt, sorry, I would have stopped you if I could. You're missing my point, so let me explain..... THEY WERE WRONG. I repeat, THEY WERE WRONG.

Good, also, for your information, we are worth over 10 billion to them, so it's a bit like the 91Èȱ¬, they're generally quite nice to us.

Furthermore, overall the IMF success record is perceived as limited. While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or reputedly most of the Fund's membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more.

Right then, nice talking to you but that's all from me for today.

#22 - extremesense

I was talking about perceptions, you know and yes, you are right,it cannot be hard to look statesman like in that company.

#25 extremedense: "THEY WERE WRONG"

Well you will recall that I said back at #12 that you knew better than the IMF. Clearly you actually believe that you do.

#20 threnodio: I think a case could be made that Churchill was a great statesman but a poor politician. Even if you ignore his dismal performance as PM after 1951, on the gounds that he was too old to have a decent chance, his career until his statesmanlike opposition to Hitler and some manifestations of fascism was hardly sparkling.

Perhaps Eden as well, though while he was certainly (IMO) a poor politician his claim to be a statesman is dubious.

Are you expecting us to believe the 131 individuals mentioned, have done nothing to secure their money already?. They've only had the longest warning period in history.

5. At 7:02pm on 08 Jul 2008, mightyangela wrote:
#3 Flugart

"You are so correct in your assessment. It is heartbreaking that the Zimbabean refugees who have managed to reach these shores are so coldly treated by the UK government. This includes both black and white refugees. "



Unless these people flew directly here from Zimbabwe, with no stops, we have no obligation to allow them to stay.
The UN convention on refugees is quite clear on this point. People must seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. This is almost never the UK.

What is unjust about the Zimbabweans situation is that we don't treat everyone in the same way. as we should.

18. At 9:06pm on 08 Jul 2008, jimbrant wrote:
#17 flugart: "I will sing a threnody for Brown with your blessing."

"'Requiem for an honest and successful, but ultimately unlucky, politician' might be an appropriate title."


It might, for John Major, but not for Brown.

Define honest. Is it a man who goes on TV and repeats the lie that the pre Iraq war intelligence is flawed? He did this recently, and was unchallenged, which is a shame because the intelligence was fine, but it was the politicians treatment of it which was dishonest. Or a man who supports a referendum on constitutional change, but then withdraws that referendum on the spurious grounds that the changes are no longer the same, when virtually everyone else in European politics say they are, ioncluding the man who drafted the Constitution?

Define successful? Is it a man who inherits a successful, functioning enconomy and then allows it to reach a point of recession through iniquitous taxation, uncompetitive bureacracy, and over regulation, together with incompetant handling of e.g. the mortgage market.

Define unlucky. Is it a man who happens to be still in power when 11 years worth of chickens come home to roost. Chickens that he nurtured and released into the world, one by one.

The record of G8 in taking action after it makes a decision has never been one of decisive action that is fully implemented, I only hope this one will be for the majority opposition in Zimbabwe.

Perhaps some on could post why they think South Africa has been so inactive on Zimbabwe or as politely put "quiet".

Whilst we and America believed in regime change and our soldiers are still getting killed and mimed, because this of this. South Africa could bring Mugabe down without fighting by switching off the power and fuel.

Again the UN has failed in helping oppressed people.

# 27 (jimrant): Dear jimrant, I can imagine that had you been on that doomed voyage of the Titanic you would have probably proclaimed 'This ship's unsinkable' as it plunged to the icy depths.

Yes, I do know better than the IMF now, everyone does - even the IMF know better now than they did then.

It's always a tell tale sign when the government stop using it to defend a position. Seems you haven't come that far yet. Never mind.

# 28: Check out 26, it wasn't meant to be serious. Come on jimbrant, please don't tell me you're compaaring Gordon Brown to Winston Churchill..... I'm sure this site is supposed to be vagueley serious.

PS - jimrant, I've noticed that you're very good at being selective.

Good stuff, next we'll all be claiming you're statesmanlike!

34 extremesense There is no comparison between Gordon Brown and Winston Churchill, Gordon would not under any circumstances send troops into Wales to quell the miners strike.
although I am a great admirer of WC for the work he did in the war but lets be honest he also did some stupid things just like all the rest of us.

# 31 (UglyJohn) Unfortunately the intelligence was deeply flawed..... the bulk of it was tortured out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

He essentially had to answer questions set by the Americans, which of course, were heavily weighted.

To avoid a discussion on what counts as torture, he was not just waterboarded or subjected to strapado/reverse strapado (accepted American 'interrogation techniques'), but tortured using electrodes, etc, etc.

This is where the links between Al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein/weapons grade uranium came from.

#32 mikethebiscuit

It pains me to say this, but South Africa has remained so quiet regarding Zimbabwe for mainly one reason. Like most of the nations in the world, both European and African, it is only concerned with its own interests. By "own" I mean the politicians and the establishment, not the ordinary citizen. The other reason is that apart from Mandela, who is a man of over ninety, the government is run by an gang of incompetents, the prime minister being the worst. I fear that South Africa will soon slide into the disaster which is now Zimbabwe.

Sadly the G8 seems to have fallen victim to the same delusion that is NewLabour; say it often enough and people will start to believe you.

Sadly, after eleven years in power with the economy crumbling around their ears, PFI schemes going bust, banks going bust, the Tripartite structure being prepared for radical surgey, the NHS being reviewed for the eleventh time, the education system crealking under reforms imposed by an education secretary with a pathological hatred on anyone with an education....sadly no-one believes a word they say anymore.

So, IMF or no IMF let's have some facts. Once the union bashing, factory closing tories had been hounded form office and the city loving, industry friendly NewLabour had been elected...things started to improve. Right? Wrong.

In the seven years since 2000 German manufacturing grew 18% while Uk manufacturing contracted 0.8%. We continued to run up an enormous trade deficit; now equal to 6.5% of GDP at £89.5bn. Uk manufacturing now lacks qualified apprenticeships so Uk manufacturing lacks qualified manual labour. The government talks about education but wants everyone to go to university rather than actualy train people in the skills we need. Thye'd rather stick someone in a classroom on tax credits than give them training in a job they want to do so, heaven fornid, they became self sufficent.

All this and other other great achievements doubtless soon to be boasted about by the great ditherer in Downing street.

Aaargh I give up.


I had a lovely post written about hipacracy and the fact that china and India wont sign up to the G8's emmissions policy but It keeps getting bounced for profanity.

I have checked it 10 times now and there isnt a profanity in it

So they've agreed financial sanctions against those close to Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Can they arrange a communique which deploys the words 'Horse' 'Door', 'Bolted' and 'Shutting' to summarise their agreement?

39 robin jd why is it that all the Tories on these blogs seem to think they have a God given right to tell us what the rest of the nation is thinking "sadly no-one believes a word they say anymore." how could you possibly know that, I know plenty of people that would disagree with you and their not all dyed in the wool Labour, most of what you rant is assumption, I suppose there are one or two facts there, but for me one glaring mistake, under the Tories there were only 50 thousand apprentices now there are 250 thousand apprentices and rising, so you see the only point as far as your concerned is that people will read your post and believe you, and that will be at the expense of the truth.

31 ugly john when are you tories going to stop moaning about a referendum you lost we won, sour grapes.
You say" when virtually everyone else in European politics say they are, ioncluding the man who drafted the Constitution?"

my answer to that is he and they must of been pretty stupid to have written the same thing when they knew it had been rejected, but on the other hand they must have been pretty clever to have condensed the treaty to a third of its original size and yet it according to you and them it remained the same. quite a trick that.

#33,34, and 35 extremesense (sic):

I have obviously hit a nerve!

#33: "even the IMF know better now than they did then." And I suppose that's true. We will all know better tomorrow than we do today. But have you any actual evidence to show that they have changed their view of the government's "exceptional achievement" over the previous decade?

#34: You are confused I think. My post was a response to the interesting query posed by threnodio at #20. It had nothing to do with your intemperate rant at #22.

#35: I would respond if I had any idea of what you meant by your second sentence.

12 Jimbrant:

You've been nibbling too many cruncy nut bars my friend. The overwhelming feature of the UK economy under Brown has been growth based on an unsustainable mountain of debt. You aren't related to those nutters that recently stated that the US stock market will see a massive rise in the 3rd quarter of the year are you? Perhaps you're the one that pursuaded the BOE to state not so very long ago that the credit crunch was petering out? Before you embraced New Labour I bet you were a crusty old hippie. But, just look what you old hippes have done to us: swallowed the corporate cucumber and driven us into utter dispair.

re: 42

So the opinion polls are all wrong? Maybe people would be willing to give Labour another chance if they believed that they were trying to do the right thing, but they so clearly aren't. They know they're out at the next GE so they've become rat-like and cunning and are trying to get as much as they can from the system. Remember the expenses vote? 86% in favour of gobbling up expenses were Labour MPs? Or will you try to suggest that it was somehow a Tory plot to discredit them? Now the Tories are far from perfect but they haven't fully fallen victim to the soundbite disease like Nu-Labour, who have been spouting them for so long they've begun to think in them, a prime example being that Blears woman. Look at anything she's said. And to top it all off, Nu-Labour's smug incredulity at any suggestion of error, corruption, mismanagement or wrongdoing is truly sickening. That's the truth

#31 UglyJohn:

"the intelligence was fine, but it was the politicians treatment of it which was dishonest" (a selective quote that sums up your point I think, in case extremesense is watching):

There is an element of truth in what you say, though it seems likely that any overstatement of the case was inadvertent. The formal statement of the intelligence case was set out in the infamous Dossier, but that was seen as being "a reasonable and accurate reflection of the intelligence that we had available to us at that time." (Evidence of MrA of the Counter Proliferation Arms Control Department to Hutton, givng his own and David Kelly's view).

"Define successful"

see my exchanges with extremesense. If the IMF say that your management of the economy over ten years has been "an exceptional achievement" I think that counts as success.

"Chickens that he nurtured and released into the world, one by one."

I do not think that you can reasonably claim that Brown had any responsibility for the sub-prime market in the US, or for the huge increase in oil prices, or for the world food shortage, or for the increase in demand for commodities in China and India. There is an argument to be made that, with hindsight, some things could have been done differently, but you do nothing for that argument by gross overstatement.

#46 power_to_the_ppl:

"That's the truth"

No, that's your opinion.

re: 48

So you don't think it's sickening?

#45 doctor-gloom:

"an unsustainable mountain of debt"

I think that is questionable. I understand that public debt is actually quite low in the UK compared to many other countries - 40% I think, compared for example to the OECD preferred limit of 60%? Even with PFI, we would be well within the acceptable range I think.

Private debt has indeed grown, but I don't quite see how you would have prevented that. Would you have legislated to prevent people taking out mortgages? or kept interest rates artificially high? I can just imagine the outcry if either of these policies had been adopted - but is there any other way of preventing people taking on debt? I would be genuinely interested to know.

Jim,

You might be right on 'public debt', but you also know that we were quangoed with it, we also got a bad case of the IT inertia, and gave our GPs a little more money for those full body waxes they love so much. But this is distraction, I think you're fully aware of how 'private' debt is largely at the heart of the matter. And yes, while we wouldn't want to return to pre-Thatcher credit controls, we would have wanted Mr Brown to have been a little more sensible about the role of the CPI in economic policy. How do we 'stop' people taking out credit? Simple: increase interest rates in a judicious and timely manner. This could have been done some time ago as the signs of a property blowout were there for all to see. However, interest rates were kept 'artificially low' for far longer than they should have been. So there you have it. Keep eating the cruncy nut bars.

#50

you 'understand' incorrectly. The UK current account deficit is second only to Spain in the European union. great achievement.

The Uk level of personal indebtedness per capita is the highest in the world.

Enough facts to be going on with? You can have some more anytime about what we really can all see, but some choose not to acknowledge, is the most wasteful and boastful government in history.

#44 (jimbrant), yes, sorry that seocnd sentence was gobbledegook - I was in a bit of a hurry.

Anyway, on to Nick's next pointless G8 posting.

Look forward to seeing you there.

30.UglyJohn wrote:

"The UN convention on refugees is quite clear on this point. People must seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. This is almost never the UK."

Unfortunately, the EU has now deemed itself a 'country' for this purpose - so getting to one EU country is the same as getting to any, and they can now seek asylum in any individual member state they wish, after passing through dozens of others first

#51 doctor-gloom: Well you may be right, and interest rates should have been increased. But I don't think you would have been very popular with business if you had been running the BoE and had followed that policy.

Jim:

Fair enough, but, we both know that 'being popular' is not written into the BOE's mandate for setting interest rates, nor it seems good old Gordon's 'mandate???' for running the country. Sorry, just had to get that in. Toodleoo for now.

49 power to the pple,the only thing sickening is the defensive way that your trying to justify your arguement by trying to discredit every one you dont like and falling back on polls Neil Kinnock was way ahead in the polls against Major and what happened.
"The tories haven't fully fallen victim to the soundbite disease", have you been on a long holiday or do you never listen to PMs questions?

8 extremesense , Wonderful I have never seen a post of yours on any blog where you make so much sense, nice to see someone prepared to be truthfull. Good on you lad.

Those still doggedly clinging to the broken pieces of Gordon Brown's raft hoping that he will be able to rebuild a new one could well have a nasty shock in store! He couldn't really go wrong on Zimbabwe because most of us are of a like mind on this issue. When I come to pay my increased road tax in order to swell the Treasury coffers I will remember who instigated it.

59 waldorf29 Well waldorf I'm quite qualified to build him one if he needs one.
When you come to pay your increased road tax on your BMW and the money goes into our treasury coffers then you will realise that you've helped to reduce greenhouse gases when you change to your new Ford Focus.
Excellent cricket today old chap.

The measure has nothing to do with the reduction of greenhouse gases as the spokespersons for The Green Party ("the move gives environmental cleansing a bad name") and The RAC reiterated on all the news channels last night. "It is all about raising money" and my car is much less modest than a BMW. And by the way I can't stand cricket. Football is my game and The P.M. will be knocked out during full time.

61:
Oh Dear! What a Freudian slip to make. Sorry Greens wasn't trying to stoke up a controversy. I meant of course to say "much more modest." Made me chuckle though. Just goes to show never post a thread during the middle of the night when you're still half asleep.

61 Waldorf You know I know and every one else know's that the whole idea of higher taxes on whats known as gas guzzles was brought in to try to make people like myself turn to less polluting cars.
In the early days of its introduction it will bring money into the treasury but as people buy smaller cars then the treasury will lose money on tax but the air will be a little cleaner and it will be a advantage to yours and my grandchildren.
Stop trying to score points of everything the government does and you may be taken more seriously.

As I said The spokespersons for The RAC and The Green Party + about 50 Labour MPs and countless others disagree with you about the motive for the tax so let's move on to something else.

64 Waldorf, So you and the green party and RAC plus according to you 50 labour MPs disagree with me if you were to ask me which of the labour MPs who disagree me,
I could give you a list of the usual suspects.
If I'm wrong as you claim then what was the point in only increasing the tax on large vehicles they could have just inceased the tax on all cars and made a lot more cash.
I am not absolutley sure but I dont think this tax system comes in until 2010 by which time you and many others claim that labour will not be in control of the treasury, so if its to gain cash for the treasury and nothing else, why would the Labour party bring in what you consider to be a unpopular tax increase, if the only people who will gain from this is the Tory party.
Do you honestly think that if the Tories get in they will drop this tax?. The green party as I have observed over the years are never satisfied with any move for the better, its never good enough for them. Once again I am not too sure but aren't the liberals in favour they've been asking for this type of move for a year or two.
If the RAC have said what you say they've said ,then I shall be writing to them with my opinion and unless I get a sensible reply then my £90 a year will be going to a more responsible organisation.

AA president Edmund King said that the tax changes were "politically dangerous" with high petrol prices already pushing up the cost of motoring and said the new figures confirmed its "worst fears".
Nearly 50 Labour backbenchers had signed an amendment to the Finance Bill asking the government to rethink its plans for car tax, but the government managed to avert a rebellion in the Commons.
Source: House of Commons
Chancellor Alistair Darling was reported to have promised the rebels that there would be moves this autumn to ease the transition.
One of the Labour rebels, Ronnie Campbell, told 91Èȱ¬ Radio 4's The World at One: "I think we have got a commitment from Alistair [Darling] to look at it in the Pre-Budget [report] in October."
He said backbenchers were "flexing our muscles" and saying "Come on, be careful here. You're going to tax these people, they're working class people, they're our core vote".
Later Ms Eagle said the legislation had not yet gone before the House of Commons and while the government had set the "context and the policy aims that we wish to pursue" it would be "churlish in the extreme not to listen" to people's concerns.
The 91Èȱ¬'s chief political correspondent James Landale said among ideas being considered were help to trade in older, high-polluting cars, and a longer transition period in which to sell them.
The Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman, Norman Baker, said the government "must have a death wish" by introducing taxes which were "penalising" people for having cars they may have chosen several years ago.
"Eventually we should cut car taxes and introduce road charges on a pay-as-you-go basis that will not penalise those with no option but to drive," Mr Baker added."

I think if you read between the lines of this report on the current situation there will be another U Turn at some stage so I'm not too concerned about it at the moment. As you say The next Government will probably reverse the plans anyway if they are still in place.

66 waldorf You didn't explain. what could possible be the advantage in changing the tax if it is of no advantage to Labour.
The idea has never been to hurt anybody, the idea is and has always been to remove these highpowered vehicles off the road to cut green house gases. many drivers and automobile organisations dont like that, I'm not to keen myself since I drive a vehicle that comes into that tax group but I obviously care more about the environment than many of these people, in the same way that I dont fly tip, or drop rubbish on the road, or not pick up my dogs mess when I take him out and my wife collects our recycling to give to the right people. Practicaly all our other waste goes into the compost bin very little is wasted in my home and yet we dont suffer, we are very happy warm and well fed. if everyone thought as much about this beautiful world as my wife and I, we would stand a chance of not being selfish and caring about the future for those to come.
when my wife and I were active sailors we would see literally tons of the most ridiculous waste floating on the ocean miles from land I think that if people could see how a beautiful ocean miles from land is littered by careless peoples waste they might want to care a little more the only difference with high powered cars is that you cant see the waste thats being pumped into the atmosphere at a enormous rate.
I did not say that the next government if it should be Tory would drop it ,in fact I suggested that they wouldn't, And I'm sure they wont.

G8 was apparently not united as the stance of Russia in vetoing sanctions against Zimbabwe now shows. What a disgrace! China too and South Africa. What have they done to try and rein their in their naughty neighbours? Precious little.