Thursday, 12 August 2004

Tory calls for more tax on petrol!

There's been a lot of debate on the web and elsewhere about the future - if any - of the Conservative (sic) Party.

Here's a good example of why the Conservatives are in such a mess:

NOT enough tax is levied on fuel and the government should increase the level of duty charged to deter people from using their cars, a committee of MPs concluded yesterday. The environmental audit committee of the House of Commons said that ministers are not doing enough to persuade people to use less fuel, and must be prepared to use tax as a lever on them.
Surely the Tories don't go along with this?

Oh yes they do:

"If the government’s commitment to sustainable development is to be taken seriously, it must take more radical action," said Peter Ainsworth, the Tory MP who chairs the committee.
It's bad enough that all the other parties fall for the Kyoto scam: there's a clear gap in the political marketplace for some alternative thinking. Can't Michael Howard see this?


David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Squander Two
Oh, and there's a widely-understood distinction between Libertarians and anarchists.

18 August 2004, 12:30:12 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Squander Two
Ah, you're using "Socialist" to mean "Communist". Fair enough, I suppose. You could use "gay" to mean "joyful" while you're at it. You are aware, though, that no-one else on here is using the word in the same sense that you are?  
When most people talk about "Socialists", Stuart, we're referring to those at the socialist end of the social democratic spectrum, who believe in enlarging the state, increasing taxes, increasing government spending on "public" services. That would include the Labour Party and the Lib Dems and, in Scotland, the Tories. Come to think of it, it would even include Tony Benn. Interesting that you don't think he's a Socialist. 
Since you're using "social democrat" to mean almost the entire modern mainstream political spectrum, what point did you think you were making by describing Scotland as a social democratic country? I ask out of genuine curiosity.  
I point out that the Scottish Conservative Party have transformed themselves into an essentially Socialist party by making increased taxes and increased "public" spending part of their policy, and you respond by saying that they're not Socialists because they're not Marxist-Leninists. Well, OK, then. No-one said they were. But that doesn't exactly refute the whole increase-taxes-and-state-spending thing, does it? 
Would it help if you substituted "left-wing" for "Socialist"?

18 August 2004, 12:29:14 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Stuart Dickson
Squander Two 
The dictiction between socialist and social democrat is very widely used and understood, but since you consider the Tories to be socialists I would not expect you to acknowledge the distiction. 
Socialists believe in the command economy. Social democrats advocate a mixed economy, as do liberals and conservatives. The more interesting and subtle distiction is between social democrats, liberals and conservatives, all of whom differ sharply from the teensy weensy band of true socialists. 
"Libertarians" on the other hand believe in neither the state-run command economy, nor the mixed economy, but in anarchy. 
I advocate the mixed economy, from a centre-right, liberal perspective.

16 August 2004, 17:24:34 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

David Farrer
At a time when the Festival is in full swing I doubt that the word “bloody” will offend the Presbyterian sensibilities of the good folk of Edinburgh.

16 August 2004, 15:20:59 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Squander Two
Oops. That should have read "I can't bloody stand the Tories." Then I wasn't sure whether David wanted the word "bloody" in his comments, so deleted it. Except I deleted the wrong word. Doh. Sorry about that.

16 August 2004, 11:22:53 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

David Farrer said...

Squander Two
You have got confused between the purpose of the Conservative Party and the origin of their name.  
That aside, the "purpose" of the Conservative Party is not to preserve the power of the establishment; it is to conserve institutions which work. Those institutions do not always equate to state power. For instance, one institution that works very well is the principle of presumed innocence, which considerably limits the power of the state and judiciary. Labour have been attempting to get rid of it, of course, thereby increasing the power of the establishment.  
I can't bloody the Tories. There's really no need to misrepresent them in order to slag them off. 
Oh, and this distinction you keep trying to draw between socialists and social democrats is nonsense. "Social democrat" is just one of many available flavours of socialist.

16 August 2004, 11:18:38 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

I Heart Annabell Goldie
"Mind you, the Labour Party in Scotland are doing a magnificent support job in keeping the Scots down." 
Aye, it was they who thought the working classes should not be owning their own homes, but should be tugging their forelocks to the Labour aristocrats who ruled them while they pleaded for a house. 
And it was a Tory government which took power away from the Labour establishment and gave it to ordinary working people.  
That was opposed not just by the Labour party, but shamefully also by the SNP who showed exactly what they thought about the lower orders getting ideas above their station.

15 August 2004, 18:30:37 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Stuart Dickson
Dave Fordwych 
The Conservative Party are overwhelmingly an English party. Therefore they promote (legitimately) the interests of their own country, not ours. 
It is the power of the English establishment they seek to preserve. Witness their opposition to Scottish and Welsh self-government. 
Mind you, the Labour Party in Scotland are doing a magnificent support job in keeping the Scots down.

15 August 2004, 17:21:11 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

I Heart Annabell Goldie
Good one Dave! 
According to Stuart Dicko the Conservative Party must be dedicated to keeping the Scottish Labour Party in power. 
I leave each of you to judge how good a job they are doing.

15 August 2004, 16:17:23 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

dave fordwych
"the purpose of the Conservative Party to preserve the power of the establishment" 
Who do you believe are "the establishment" in Scotland in 2004?

15 August 2004, 14:40:58 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

David Farrer said...

David McLetchie Rules!!!!!!!!!
"The Scottish Socialist Party attracts only 7% of the vote." 
Why so many!? 
"The purpose of the Conservative Party, as the name indicates, is to preserve the power of the establishment." 
And there was me thinking it was socialists who wanted the workers to "know there place", silly me!  
Of course it was a Socialist government which allowed people the right to buy their council houses, while the Tories gnashed their teeth about people getting ideas above their station.

14 August 2004, 17:29:00 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Andrew Ian Dodge
If you think this is idiotic, CF have come out in favour of Kerry. Howard has alas completely lost control of his party.

14 August 2004, 15:23:05 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Stuart Dickson
Scotland is not a "socialist" or "red" country. 
All three main parties (Labour, Scottish National Party, and Liberal Democrats) are social democratic, not socialist. The Scottish Socialist Party attracts only 7% of the vote. 
The purpose of the Conservative Party, as the name indicates, is to preserve the power of the establishment. It will do whatever it takes to retain the staus quo. Raising or lowering taxes is irrelevant to them.

13 August 2004, 19:12:37 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

David McLetchie Rules!!!!!!!!!
I love the Tories, Margaret Thatcher is a total goddess and I worship her daily. 
Scotland is presently a dark land of socialism, and only the Conservatives can rescue it with their low tax high growth policies. 
I agree this Tory petrol tax is madness, methinks they cave in to pressure form the Red Front who rule Scotland. Rediscover your true values blessed Tory party and the future can be yours!

13 August 2004, 18:36:39 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Robert Speirs
Why shouldn't those who want to pay more tax be able to do so by having a box at every gas station where people can contribute to funding their beloved government?

13 August 2004, 14:55:04 GMT+01:00