OT ish incandescent bulb ban

The argument is simple.

legislation, or taxation.

Taxation leaves the choice: it merely makes it an expensive one. But otherwise doesn't ruin society.

Legislation,if it is applied, means legislators and enforcers..lots of them.

These are people whose labour is totally non productive. In fact its destructive.

The cost to the taxpayer exceeds the tax that would have been paid on making anti social consumption financially unattractive.

instead of switching off expensive electricity, you are forced to buy the crappy bulb, and you simply use more of them, and leave them on, because electricity is still cheap.

It teh same issue here with cars.

We NEED a 4WD to get across muddy fields sometimes, and to handle the ungritted roads. We also have a very fuel inefficient camper. Now, if fuel were expensive, but car tax cheap, I'd get a third car.. a little teeny engined runabout - to save fuel going to the shops. BUT I either have to but a NEW one with ultra low fuel consumption to escape tax altogether, or stump up for a low tax low insurance secondhand one. total costs are higher.. thann...

..In fact, because the camper at 20mpg is less to tax than the 4WD (being a wurking clarss commercial vehicle) at 35mpg, I now use the camper as a spare car. Madness.

Its not an eco tax at all. Its a tax on the rural population, who never have and never will vote labour. So sod em.

Its the normal communist attack on the intellegentsia and entrepreneurial bourgeoisie. Because they threaten to expose the idiocy of the socialist mantra.

Brown wants the whole country as opposed to the 20% of families it now has, totally dependent on welfare. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and that is the tune. Do what you are told, we know best, and let us do the thinking for you, like God, and the Pope, we are never wrong as long as we have Faith, in something. And, if you happen to have savings, we will take them too, as that proves how antisocial you must have been to accumulate them.

Since we have instituted a policy to ensure you were deeply in debt for ten years. And we need the cash t pay off those debts for the poor deserving people who were greedy and stupid enough to get taken in by our bullshit.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

Yes it does as it prices many people out of the market (due to not being able to afford higher prices), and when one is talking about heat and light that is the same as saying that it's life or death for some...

Reply to
Jerry

Not a penny to pick between them. Except that Nu Laber has been more adept in making people believe they are good, and done more actual harm than Maggie could.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

well not really. Cf the latest figures on US energy usage.

formatting link
isn't theory, this is fact.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

So take the taxes that you make on high energy, and feed them back to those that need them.

BTW I am no Thatcherite. She destroyed britains manufacturing, to remove union power, and she destroyed the conservative party in order to stay in control.

Just as Nu Laber has destroyed our education system, so that no one is equipped to question what they do, and destroyed the entrepreneurs, who also might sing against them, and destroyed the independence of the house of lords, the judicial system and the police force. Because thay are in the way of state control of everything.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Err, people will use what they need to, if they can't afford to buy new (energy efficient) 'what-evers' then what chance the higher fuel costs. A said elsewhere in response to your Thatcheright (and Bush it would seem) gibberish, putting people into fuel poverty does nothing but cost those people their health, if not lives - fuel costs need to come down, not go up!

Reply to
Jerry

In your dreams...

Reply to
Jerry

The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:

This is a very well put exposition on what I've been saying to various acquaintances for a while.

Trouble is, no-one listens.

Part P is irksome because I do not see the merit of state involvement in such things in my home. Most don't care.

Part L causes more people I know to grumble but they don't care that much.

My post regarding the arrest of Damien Green got one reply on our local village forum: people are more interested in whinging about the fat chavs' illuminated Rudolf on the roof next door and horse manure on the local bridal paths.

And so it goes on. I expect car maintenance will become a licensed activity soon, after that bloke and his dodgey Landrover repairs causing death.

I do recall an old film-snippet dating back to when drink-driving was quantified at a specific level in 1967 for the first time and the film showed an interview with a typical english gent with a tweed jacket and a moustache was having a serious rant about it being an "infringement of his civil liberties" that he could no longer have 3 pints and drive home.

Poor bloke would go thermo-nuclear if you hoicked him out of 1967 and dumped him straight into today.

The point not being that I advocate drink driving (I'm fully conditioned to accept that it is a Bad Thing), but that in 1967 people would see any increase in state powers as undesirable, warrented or not.

Now, the police can pull a stunt, the like of which used to be the stuff of civil wars, and no one gives a damn.

Cheers

Tim

Reply to
Tim S

I though you wanted less bureaucracy, not more, and what about the many who are the wrong side of the means tested poverty line but still can't afford either high energy prices or to replace their inefficient appliances etc - the true level of poverty in the UK is a lot higher than the official figures suggest. :~(

To bloody true, and it's one of the reasons why the UK is really going to feels the current world recession (or even depression), as we are almost totally reliant on imports ATM.

Err, no, Thatcher started doing that in the 1980s.

Reply to
Jerry

. snipped-for-privacy@proxy02.news.clara.net...

Labour got to it a good decade before that.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Nah, two and a half decades, except that then it was to improve them, never mind the start to the end of the unfair (life long) streaming of kid at 10 years of age...

Also it's funny how the Tory supporters forget that, whilst Labour put modern workshops (that taught practical skills if not a the basics of a trade) into schools, the Tories under Thatcher ripped them all out...

Reply to
Jerry

Of course they didn't. What they did do was to fall for a load of ecobollox which will cause people like 'M' unnecessary expense & inconvenience.

Oh what a surprise, not all styles are available yet.

And they are no doubt s**te.

So are flying pigs.

The point is they shouldn't be doing it at all.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Typical f*cking tree hugger argument.

The lightbulb scam is pure ecobollox.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

This is a technique you always use when faced with a question that isn't in the tree huggers handbook. You claim everything is a personal attack and that people distort your posts. You also rely heavily on the 'do you know more than xxx' argument & then site some internet source that supports whatever you want.

No doubt you wear wholewheat dungareees whilst posting.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Frank, I couldn't agree more. The Govmint should keep the streets clean & providing the everyday service we require - nothing else.

Alas too true. However, if I required a nanny I would call Mary Poppins.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

It should be the concern of electricians who have detailed practical knowledge of the subject & not of politicians who are only interested in catching votes & furthering their careers.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:49:36 GMT someone who may be "The Medway Handyman" wrote this:-

Ah, proof by assertion.

Reply to
David Hansen

Ah, standard boilerplate answer.

Reply to
Bob Eager

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message news:0ME0l.5545$ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.virginmedia.com...

The trouble is that a baby doesn't know that it needs a nanny...

Reply to
Jerry

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.