Pro-Car

Bentley leads trio of dramatic British car brand expansions

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:38:00 +0000

This year is shaping up to be an exciting one for the British car industry, and over the next few posts we'll do a round up of the latest developments.

Bentley, Lotus and MG have all revealed plans to expand their UK-based operations with a range of new models that are set to hit the road in the next few years.

We'll look at Lotus and MG in later posts. But to kick off let's take a look at Bentley - one of Britain's oldest car marques and one that trades on its history and tradition perhaps more than any other.

Yet news from the Crewe-based firm looks set to shock Bentley purists.

Under VW ownership, new models like the Continental GT, Flying Spur and Mulsanne have revived a luxury brand that was long confined to adapting and uprating Rolls Royce models.

But in a bid to drive sales to new highs, bosses are starting to look at taking the firm into new territory through several ground-breaking new projects, inspiration for several of which seems to have come from fellow VW Group stablemate Porsche.

New Continental GT

Bentley's new Continental GT may not look very different, but the company insists that the only part of the car that isn't new are the wing mirrors, being the same as fitted to the Mulsanne.

As the acclaimed car that revived the firm's fortunes after it split from Rolls Royce, the redesign of the Continental was never going to be a radical one. But as so often with Bentley, the difference is in the detail and it's up close that the changes become more evident.

Overall the new GT has been given a much cleaner and less rounded feel. At the front there's a larger, more upright grille flanked by one main and one smaller set of headlights to replace the twin similar-sized layout of the previous model. Underneath, wider and deeper lowe air intakes are finished in similar chrome mesh grille as the radiator.

Along the side, there's the same crease that starts at the lower front bumper, curves up over the wheel-arch and heads towards the back of the car. But now, rather than dropping away subtly downwards, instead heads arrow straight through the door handles until it meet the rear wheel-arches.

At the rear, the most distinctive changes are the smaller rear light clusters which, like the fronts, also feature LEDs and the much squarer, projecting bootlid, which mimics the 1950s Bentley R-Type.

The layout of the bespoke interior remains similar to the previous model, but features an updated instrument panel in front of the driver. A new main 'infotainment' display screen sits on the centre console, with revised seating and air conditioning switch-gear underneath.

The seats have also been redesigned, aimed at freeing up more leg-room for rear seat passengers.

But it's not just the car's looks that have changed. Under the skin, the new Continental is also being offered with an all-new V8 engine option, promising 40 percent lower emissions than the previously standard W12 unit. Performance has been sharpened up too, with a tweaked gearbox and the four-wheel-drive system shifted from a 50:50 to a 40:60 rear bias to improve on-road dynamics.

The car's W12 engine has also been slightly uprated which, combined with weight savings, has improved the car's acceleration and top speed.

A question mark also still hangs over the possibility of an estate, or 'Shooting Brake' version of the Continental, following the acclaim for a Superleggera designed concept that debuted at the Geneva Motor Show earlier this year. The company is reportedly consulting customers on the viability of a limited production run.

Diesel power

Fresh from launching the all-new Mulsanne and Continental GT, Bentley has hinted that its next move will be to develop its first diesel engine in its 92-year history.

The move has been confirmed by boss of the company's parent group, Dr Ferdinand Piech, but so far no details about the engine have been made available. Neither has it been revealed to which Bentley models the new motor may be fitted, but it's most likely that it will be an option in the firm's less sporty models, such as the Mulsanne and Flying Spur.

Despite the current lack of detail it's already safe to say that the result is likely to be the world's most refined and powerful diesel, particularly since it's not as if the firm is starting from scratch. Bentley's parent company, VW, has in recent years been at the forefront of oil-burner innovation, developing potent yet quiet diesels for its range-topping Porsche and Audi models.

It's not hard to see why Bentley wants to get in on the act. Firstly, introducing a diesel engine to the firm's range will help to increase the fuel efficiency of its models and cut emissions to meet stringent new European Union regulations. It's also the case that, with BMW, Land Rover, Mercedes and Jaguar now all offering oil-burners across their premium ranges, diesel models are starting to outsell petrol variants in many of the company's main markets.

Shock 4x4 model

Perhaps the most shocking news to purists will be recent reports of the firm's bosses feeding speculation that an all-new Bentley 4x4 is under serious consideration.

New chairman and CEO, Wolfgang Duerheimer, was recently quoted speaking enthusiastically about the opportunities for Bentley in the "super-luxury" SUV segment. He has noted both that no-one is delivering such a vehicle in the "Bentley style" and that many of Bentley's customers also own a premium 4x4 vehicle.

While traditionalists surely won't like it, from a sales view he may have a point. What's more, having recently joined the Crewe-based firm from Porsche, where he was instrumental in launching the Cayenne SUV, Duerheimer also has close experience of taking an established brand with passionate followers into new and unexpected market territory.

Turbo R revival

The company has also set tongues wagging that the much-loved 'Turbo R' badge may return on an all-new coupe version of the Mulsanne.

The original 'Turbo R' gained a strong following for its impressive combination of power, performance and luxury, turning a heavyweight limo into a car that was both shockingly quick and eminently driveable - the R standing for 'road-holding'.

The new 'grand' two-door is likely to feature an uprated version of the Mulsanne's 6.75 litre V8 engine and replace the firm's current Brooklands model.

All-new Bentley 'Eight'?

Finally, rumours abound that the company is planning to join the burgeoning four-door coupe sector, by considering a model to rival the Aston Martin Rapide, Maserati Quattroporte and Porsche Panamera. Such a car would also offer a more luxurious alternative to the Mercedes CLS or acclaimed new Jaguar XJ.

So far, company bosses talk vaguely of a "third generation model" but to differentiate the new car from the Flying Spur the format is likely to be based around sister company Audi's A7 Sportback.

Taking its cues from the new Continental GT at the front, the rear is likely to feature a dramatically sloping roofline and prominent, squared off boot-lid in the company's latest style harking back to Bentleys of old.

The new car will also be priced as an entry-level model and Bentley hopes as a result it will sell in numbers to ensure the company's stability in the current difficult economic climate, particularly in the increasingly important Chinese market.

Talk of the car being fitted with the firm's all-new 4.0 litre V8 engine, mated to an eight-speed automatic gearbox, means I'm going to stick my neck out and predict now that this new Bentley will revive another traditional model name - the 'Eight'.

Not only was this Bentley's entry model during the mid 80s/early 90s, but it would also bode well for sales in the increasingly important Chinese market, where eight is seen as a lucky number thanks to the Chinese word for 'eight' sounding similar to that for 'prosper' or 'wealth'.

So remember folks; when the new Bentley 'Eight' makes its debut, you heard it here first!

New horizons

While suspicions will always arise when a bespoke firm comes under the ownership of a mass manufacturer, there's no reason to doubt VW's commitment to Bentley's fine history and traditional values.

However, in today's competitive environment, Bentley must also look to the future and the demands of a global marketplace. Preserving the values of a marque as emotive as Bentley is of course important, but perhaps more so is seeking levels of sales that will safeguard the company's future and, with it, the hopes and aspirations of its 3,500 employees. Not to mention the thousands more in the firm's suppliers and dealerships.

Ultimately, as long as the end product is up to the firm's high standards and represents its traditional values, Bentley followers are likely to find that their much-loved marque is capable of being more elastic than they may first imagine.

London c-charge changes miss big picture

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:19:00 +0000

The London congestion charge is set for a welcome New Year shake-up.

New rules due to come into force on 4th January will finally scrap the westward extension of the c-charge zone, freeing residents, businesses and travellers in Bayswater, Notting Hill, Kensington and Chelsea from the grips of the scheme.

The shrunken zone will stretch only from an Edware Road - Park Lane - Vauxhall Bridge Road boundary in the west to the current eastern boundary.

The change will fufill at last the election promise to scrap the western enlargement of the zone made by London mayor Boris Johnson, which was thought to be a major factor in his success over his repressive, money-grasping predecessor Ken Livingstone.

Economic boost

Thousands of people who enter the western zone, or who were forced to travel through it to access work, will save a fortune. This will very likely be spent instead on goods and services that both improve their lives and provide much-needed support for the businesses on which Britain's economic recovery depends.

For example, those who travel into or through the western zone three times a week at £8 a shot will enjoy an incredible saving of £1,248 per year.

Given that surveys estimate 60% of all journeys through the western extension originate outside the zone, that a third of western zone users admits to finding the c-charge hard to afford, and that a majority of local businesses blamed the c-charge for reduced profitability, the move will provide a welcome increase in income for particularly low- and average-waged households for whom public transport cannot meet their needs - as well as for local businesses.

Oppressive time limit tackled

A further beneficial development is the launch of a new 'Auto Pay' service, which records each visit into the zone made by cars that are registered for the service and takes a monthly payment.

This helps alleviate the outrageous situation in which, if you forgot to pay on the day of travel or the day after, you were hit with a massive £60 fine.

Quite how Ken Livingstone felt it reasonable or appropriate to put such a short time limit on payment of his 'toll tax' is beyond imagination, but reveals a great deal that's unappealing about that man's mindset.

I wonder how many people have already been grossly ripped off - and how much hard-earned cash has been robbed by officialdom as a result of brief distraction or forgetfulness - due to that particularly oppressive element of the scheme.

There are also changes to the exemption rules to link free access to the zone to a car's emissions rather than its alternative fuel technology. What Car magazine has published a handy list of winners and losers as a result of this change.

Charge to rise

But the news isn't all good.

While many people stand to be released from the impositions and costs of the scheme, those who still need to drive in the original central zone face charges that are being increased from a level that is already beyond reasonable or acceptable.

The daily charge to enter the zone will be hiked by £2, from £8 to £10 if you pay on the day you enter the zone and from £10 to £12 if you pay the day after - although you'll get away with £9 if you're registered for 'Auto Pay'.

Reality check

But all this discussion of tweaks to the c-charge overlooks the elephant in the room. It has not cut congestion.

Livingstone's scheme has been failing almost since the start. All at vast expense to the public, £340m of which - up to November 2009 - has been pocketed by the 'public administration' plc Capita for creating and running the system.

As far back as late 2007 and again in April 2008 there were warnings that the scheme was not reducing congestion in the c-charge zone.

Today, even TfL continues to admit that "sadly, congestion has risen back to pre-charging levels".

Though TfL goes on to claim, dubiously, that the situation would be worse without the charge and blames this outcome on "widespread water and gas main replacement works, which have greatly reduced the road capacity" and "Traffic management measures to help pedestrians and other road users".

Problems that clearly remain since April 2008, the second of which has been very much in TfL's gift to resolve.

Isn't it somewhat outrageous to charge people large sums for the benefit of driving in a supposedly reduced congestion area, just to make changes to other aspects of "traffic management" that have made congestion just as bad as it was before any charge was levied at all? How does TfL justify this behaviour and its continued right to charge car users anything at all?

Bus problem

Or perhaps those excuses are not the real problems contributing to the failure of the scheme at all.

The more likely reason, as we've previously blogged, is that Ken Livingstone wasted the c-charge income on a vast increase in bus numbers.

Anyone who has followed a bus through London will know the congestion and tailbacks even one causes while it negotiates London's crowded streets, spewing health-endangering diesel fumes, often with only a handful of people on board.

There are far too many, being subsidised at excessive public cost.

Congrats, but ...

So, Boris - congratulations for scrapping the western zone as you promised. A politician who keeps his promises is certainly not to be sniffed at!

But now its time to face facts. The c-charge isn't cutting congestion. It's just a massive extra tax on Londoners and a gift for paper-shuffling, public-harassing, penalty-charging officialdom.

It's time to rid London of Ken Livingstone's ridiculous and repressive congestion charging scam altogether.

MG cars reborn in surprise six model line-up

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:05:00 +0000

One of the most exciting pieces of automotive news in 2010 has been the looming spectacular relaunch of the historic MG car brand.

To date the company's only offering since its takeover by Chinese motor group SAIC has been the TF roadster, production of which has been distinctly intermittent.

While the mid-engined sportcar was respected for its handling, its 1990s heritage has left it severely lagging rivals.

But the company's new bosses have confirmed that MG is about to burst back onto the motoring scene with a range of surprising new models.

Showing the company is preparing to mix it in the most competitive sectors of the car market, the first new generation MG to hit the road will be the MG6 family model in both saloon and hatchback guise.

The Ford Mondeo and VW Jetta rival will be the first all-new MG to emerge from the company's historic Longbridge, West Midlands, home for 15 years when UK production starts by the end of 2010 and cars go on sale in early 2011.

Designed and engineered in Britain for sale internationally, the car is set to be powered by a 1.8 litre petrol engine with a 1.9 litre turbodiesel to follow.

Dubbed a 'fastback', early pictures of the production-ready MG6 show a coupe-like profile and, in keeping with the brand's history, the car is expected to have a distinctly sporting personality.

Featuring dramatic front lights, the car's angular face has a VW Golf style thin front grill dominated by a large MG badge with a deep black mesh grill below.

But while it's hard to judge from promotional photos alone, first impressions of the styling suggest that the MG6 may suffer from the clashing hints of Asian, European and American design tastes that come with attempting to build a 'world car'.

Designing an appealing car for all markets is a quest with which even the world's largest car makers have struggled, as the typically ungainly results have tended to underwhelm all markets.

MG, even with the resources of its new Chinese backers, would be very brave to attempt such a feat with its new range.

The '6' will be followed by a smaller Ford Fiesta and VW Polo sized model set to be called the MG3, which will go on sale in China before production moves to the UK by 2012.

Technical details are sketchy but the car is likely to be powered by 1.3 and 1.5 litre four-cylinder engines, with the possibility of a 1.5 litre turbo sports model.

Altogether, the new MG family is likely to comprise six models when production at Longbridge is up to full speed.

Other additions to the line-up over the coming five years are rumoured to be a mid-range 'MG4' to rival the Ford Focus and Vauxhall Astra, a large four-door model in the mould of the former MG ZT, plus a small electric city car.

A replacement for the dated TF roadster is also in the pipeline for a 2013 launch, with a number of development options being considered from a re-design of the current mid-engined format to an all-new front-engined sportscar. Powertrain options will include a hybrid as well as a potentially exciting V6 unit.

In the meantime the long-lived current TF will be finally phased out at the end of 2010.

Pricing of the MG3 in China shows SAIC's strategy for the marque may be to undercut major rivals while providing distinctive design and high levels of equipment as standard.

A premium sporting brand at a value price is an exciting prospect.

Under Chinese ownership, many false dawns and slipped re-launch timetables have surrounded the iconic British sporting brand. According to SAIC, the launch of the MG6 represents "the start of one of the most exciting periods in the 85-year history of the MG brand".

The latest news certainly shows that the company's new Chinese owners are serious about the marque's future.

Flawed 'green' parking permit scheme

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:02:00 +0000

A recent move to Clapham has led to scrutiny of the local regime for resident parking permits, and the news isn't good.

It turns out that Lambeth Borough Council is one of the absurd London authorities that, purportedly in the name of helping the environment, actually charges you more if you wish to leave higher emissions cars parked at home.

Their bizarre idea towards cutting car emissions is to encourage the daytime use of 'gas guzzlers' while making it cheaper to leave the 'green' ones at home allowing people to travel on public transport instead.

Even when introduced, back in 2007, the idea was far from new.

That's not to say Lambeth Council is doing those who have what they deem to be a 'green' car any favours.

Perhaps, historically, the price for a resident's parking permit in the borough has been much higher. But today the lowest price band for a permit for anything other than only a handful of ultra-low emissions, brand new hybrid or diesel-engined city cars still comes in at £90 a year - compared to the blanket £99 for a resident's permit up in Hammersmith.

That's for the charging band below the one in which basic level superminis like the Ford Fiesta and Renault Clio sit. Up another band, a range of very average family cars like the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 407 face charges of £135 and the owner of a hardly 'gas guzzling' 2.0 litre Ford C-Max (basically, a slightly enlarged Ford Fiesta) would be hit with a charge of £180 to park outside their own house. That's only £20 cheaper than the £200 that the owner of a V8 Range Rover or Aston Martin would be hit with.

Reasonable? Hardly.

Ill-considered

No doubt the Lambeth councillors responsible for this ill considered 'green' scheme would defend themselves by saying it's designed to encourage people to switch to lower emissions cars, or even to do away with their car altogether.

But who do they think they're kidding? That's clearly so much 'greenwash', because neither justification remotely stacks up as a realistic option for most people.

Firstly, the idea that car users are all self-indulgently choosing their cars as some kind of luxury and will be persuaded to ditch them altogether when faced with a more expensive parking permit is mind-numbingly ignorant.

Cars are already extremely expensive in many, many ways. No-one would choose to flush the vast cost of purchasing, financing, servicing, insuring, fueling, MOTing and taxing a car unless they absolutely needed one.

Beyond the wealthy, for whom a hundred quid here or there matters little, those still using cars in London are very likely far more hard-pressed financially and actually need a car because they simply can't get everywhere they need to be, carrying everything they need to carry, on public transport.

Hitting these people with extra charges is highly oppressive. Or perhaps we should say, using one of today's buzzwords, 'regressive'. Such people are not the ultra wealthy and have no choice but to pay higher charges if they wish to continue to meet all the needs of their work and family.

Secondly, do these councillors have any idea how much it costs to switch cars? In their fantasy world (and I wonder how many councillors who voted to introduce this scheme actually own and run a car) they presumably expect someone moving into Lambeth, seeing an elevated charge for a parking permit, to decide to go car-shopping.

Yet, even at the lower end of the price spectrum, you'd need to throw at least £1,000 into the budget on top of the value of your old car to get something that'll be fit for, typically, three years ahead.

A lot more if you wish to get something modern and sufficiently environmentally friendly to qualify for the lowest permit charges.

Seriously, how many people do these councillors think are going to choose to drop at least a grand on buying a new car rather than just pay up the extra for a permit?

Cash grab

The scheme quite obviously will not meet the objectives councillors use to justify it. But what it clearly does do is raise large wads of extra cash for the council.

According to local newspaper reports, it seems an extra £1m was ripped off from Lambeth residents for permits to park outside their own homes in 2007/8 alone - an outrageous 50% increase in income over the year before the 'green' scheme was introduced.

And the scheme does this by - highly regressively - targetting the less well off. It disproportionately affects the middle and lower-income car users who either can't afford the extra charges or don't have a driveway or front garden they can concrete over to escape the council's oppressive financial demands.

Council choice

With this scheme, Lambeth council is basically offering residents the choice of thinking they're either hopelessly ignorant of people's real-world options - or blatantly money-grabbing because they're aware people have no sensible choice other than to pay whatever extra charges they demand.

Having fired an email off to the council about the scheme, I wonder if we'll shortly find out which one it is.

In the meantime, with the prospect of an unacceptably high charge for a residents parking permit in order to leave my very average 2.0 litre Peugeot parked at home, I'm going to be driving it up to Hammersmith every day instead of using public transport.

Well done Lambeth. How to make your residents very green!

Jaguar's stunning X-Type replacement breaks cover

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:27:00 +0000

The revival clearly continues apace at Jaguar - one of Britain's most historic and industrially important car manufacturers.

Far from resting on their laurels following the recent launch of the new flagship XJ, Jaguar has given the go-ahead to production of a stunning new BMW 3-series rival.

In an exclusive report, British car magazine Auto Express reveals this week that Jag bosses have confirmed that an X-Type replacement is already under development and due to appear in 2012.

According to the magazine's images, the all-new smallest car in the Jaguar range looks set to follow eye-catching design cues set down by the ground-breaking new XF and XJ models.

At the front end will be a subtly re-worked version of the company's new rectangular mesh grille and XF-style swept-back twin headlights.

At the back, trademark curved rear haunches will lead to the marque's new-style smooth rear, complemented by sleek rear lights.

The effect will create a significantly more modern, sporty and muscular stance than that of the existing X-Type.

But it's what will be under the skin that may spell the biggest trouble for BMW, as Jaguar appears to be targeting the German company's reputation for handling prowess.

The magazine reveals that Jaguar is working on an all-new aluminium rear-drive chassis for its new baby model, with the aim of making it the lightest and best handling car in its class.

Under the bonnet, the company may continue to offer a 3.0 litre V6 diesel engine to power the next X-Type. But with ever greater focus on cutting emissions, the mainstays of the engine range will be a pair of four-cylinder petrol and diesel units.

While the old X-Type had a strong band of followers - attracted by the Jaguar brand image and the car's competent, Mondeo-based handling - the model was never a sales success.

Yet for Jaguar to continue the fight back against its key German competitors it must make greater headway in the higher volume market for smaller executive cars.

If the production version comes anywhere close to the images revealed this week, this important new model for the British car industry will look fantastic and ensure the likes of BMW, Audi and Mercedes will soon have a real fight on their hands!

Flawed case for 20mph urban speed limits

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 18 May 2010 16:44:00 +0000

Much has been written recently about the proposal to introduce 20mph urban speed limits.

Numerous articles have popped up in both the mainstream and motoring media to say what a good idea it would be to reduce limits on residential roads from 30mph down to 20mph.

The focus of most of the articles has been statistics showing the number of lives that can purportedly be saved by such a 10mph reduction.

Typical of the genre was Andrew Neather writing not so long ago in the Evening Standard.

He points to accident statistics contained in the mysterious "One study". Who it was conducted by and what their agenda and methodology may be isn't stated.

But who cares, right? Because it somehow offers the claim that "20mph limits reduce road injuries by more than 40 per cent" and it appears that bit is just too juicy not to quote.

Yet when you think about this stat for a moment, it cannot possibly bear any relation to reality.

A car hitting someone at virtually any speed will cause something as vaguely defined as "road injuries". So what this study appears to suggest is that a mere 10mph cut in speed means almost half of pedestrians or cyclists who unfortunately wander into the path of moving vehicles won't be hit at all.

Almost half? As a result of 10mph? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. One big question mark against the accuracy of that particular study, for starters. Or maybe just how Mr Neather has represented its conclusions.

Piled on this failing, I'm willing to bet, is the fault of omission. Did this study also factor in the likelihood of additional accidents due to driver inattention? Being limited to 20mph is so ridiculously low that, while crawling along, people will very likely spend their time looking out of the window or fiddling with their stereo.

The result may just be more accidents.

In any case, following the argument that saving lives must always trump traffic speed, without looking at the bigger picture, will inevitably bring all traffic to a total halt.

Unless, at some point, you come to terms with the fact that things that move will inevitably be involved in accidents; that pedestrians must also carry some responsibilty for avoiding vehicles and it's not always the driver's fault; and that our economy depends fundamentally on people and goods moving around, so they must be allowed to do so at a reasonable speed.

The line of compromise must be drawn somewhere and, beyond their use in certain limited areas, such as outside schools, it seems to me 20mph limits clearly cross it.

Stats distraction

But even flinging potential numbers of lives lost or saved back and forth, accurate or otherwise, misses the point. Due to one crucial detail.

The plan is to police these new limits with a comprehensive (and no doubt extremely expensive) network of mass surveillance cameras recording every vehicle movement within an area and measuring average speed.

And that's why the proposal won't, in fact, cut speeding at all.

First, virtually all residential roads on which a driver might technically be capable of reaching 30mph will already have been road-humped to stop-start oblivion.

It's already impossible to reach even 20mph consistently, particularly in London, without regurgitating your spleen and smashing your car's suspension into tiny pieces.

Second, even if your wallet will stand bouncing and crashing your pride and joy over humps at 20mph, or you even find a rare, hump-free road, the time any driver will spend travelling at the maximum permitted speed relative to negotiating junctions, dodging other cars and sitting at traffic lights will be tiny.

All the times they simply cannot avoid going slower and stopping altogether between one camera and the next is why limits measured by average speed won't remotely curb anyone who gets the opportunity to rocket briefly, but no less dangerously, down residential streets.

Real agenda

So if the plan so blatantly won't work to curb speeding, why is it being proposed at all?

The answer can only be that these new limits are not really about speed, but about justifying the installation of the auto-recording camera network required to police them.

That is the real goal. Mass surveillance.

Such a plan has to go hand-in-hand with reduced limits, because the idea of anyone being able to travel through a network of residential roads at an average of 30mph is just plain laughable.

Can it really be a coincidence that this 20mph proposal has emerged so soon after it has become clear - thanks particularly to the election of Boris Johnson as London mayor and a big 'No' vote in Manchester - that congestion charging, and the similar mass-recording camera network required to police it, will be spreading no further for the foreseeable future?

As if by magic, a new justification for the excessive, automatic monitoring by camera of our every movement is being whipped up.

So what a shame it is that some commentators - even those writing for respected car magazines that really should know better - appear to take such a shallow view of the issue as to have fallen for the spin and lame statistics being put about by those who are, in truth, seeking only to expand our already over-developed surveillance state.

RBS motor brands may go under the hammer

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:34:00 +0000

Talks in Brussels between troubled banking group RBS and the EU have raised the prospect that the group's major motoring brands Direct Line, Churchill insurance and Green Flag will have to be sold off.

The RBS insurance arm is Britain's largest car insurance provider, second largest general insurer and employs 18,000 people.

This week the European Commission has been ruling on measures banks must take to offset the advantage of state backing they have received, focussing mainly on forced asset sales.

Earlier, Northern Rock and Lloyds TSB were the subject of invasive EU competition rulings that ordered Northern Rock to be split in two and Lloyds TSB to dispose of significant parts of its high street network.

RBS was one of the worst affected by the credit crunch and was propped up by over £20bn of public backing.

Now 70%-owned by the taxpayer, RBS executives have been in Brussels this week thrashing out a settlement with EU competition chiefs.

According to Sky News, EU Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, has said that the only way the EU will be satisfied with the extent of state backing for RBS will be if the bank sells off its insurance arm.

As well as Direct Line, Churchill and Green Flag, the group includes the Privilege brand and broker insurance provider NIG.

RBS mooted disposing of its insurance arm back in February, in order to raise sufficient money to avoid a government takeover.

But the sell off was abandoned after it became clear the amount raised would be billions of pounds less than RBS was hoping for.

At the time, RBS chief exec Stephen Hester said: "Given RBS's broader considerations, it was important to test the market for this business, which has demonstrated that a sale on terms currently available would destroy value for RBS shareholders."

Together, the group's thousands of employees and millions of customers in Britain are unlikely to welcome the new instability the EU is forcing on the companies.

Talks are set to continue after the weekend.

Cars users get raw deal relative to rail

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:14:00 +0000

New research published today has exposed the scale of the raw deal that car users get from the government.

The study into government spending on road and rail infrastructure when compared per passenger kilometre reveals that for every £1 of public money spent on roads, a massive £10 is spent on rail services.

That spending on rail outnumbers spending on roads by a factor of ten to one when actual usage is taken into account is particularly unfair given the huge amounts of tax paid by car users every year.

The study estimates the motorists' tax burden at over £30bn a year - increasing all the time.

Even this figure only takes fuel duty and road tax bills into account, yet is still £18.4 billion more than the combined total cost of road spending and road transport greenhouse gas emissions.

Credible comparison

The conclusions of the study, which was produced jointly by the Drivers' Alliance and the TaxPayers' Alliance, were based on total spending in 2007/08 of £8.2bn on rail and £8.3bn on roads.

While those two figures are roughly similar, campaigners say 59 billion passenger kilometres were travelled by rail in that period, compared with 749 billion by road.

The use of passenger kilometres means both the number of people travelling and the distance of their journeys are taken into account, to accurately reflect how each mode of transport contributes to keeping Britain moving.

Not even green

Such a disparity in spending cannot even be justified on environmental grounds, since a rail industry report concluded that it can often be greener to travel by car than catch a train.

The Rail Safety and Standards Board study confirmed that a journey by a family of three would produce half the emissions if travelled by car than by modern diesel train.

Peter Roberts, Chief Executive at the Drivers’ Alliance, said: "We desperately need to prioritise roads before rail if congestion is to be tackled.

"Adding road capacity is cost effective and provides genuine savings in journey times for the majority of individuals, goods and services.

"Spending vast sums of drivers' taxes on extravagant rail projects will not address the immediate transport problems we have in the UK.”

Funding switch

The time has come for the government to drop the tired old dogma of treating car users like cash cows and giving very little in return - especially splashing the vast sums that car users pay in tax on far less efficient and less environmentally-friendly forms of travel.

Huge sums being sunk into the railways must be rebalanced back towards the far better investment of road infrastructure instead.

With public spending cuts looming large on the political agenda, this study clearly shows that it is cuts in rail expenditure that should come before chopping road improvement projects.

Race is on for first Brit-built hybrid

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:43:00 +0000

Toyota and Nissan are going head-to-head in a quest to offer the first British-built hybrid car.

Petrol-electric versions of Toyota's Auris and the Nissan Qashqai are currently under development and heading for UK and European showrooms in 2010.

But while Toyota has set its sights on being first, according to Auto Express magazine it's the 'eco-friendly' Qashqai that looks set to be quickest off the mark.

The mag claims that Nissan's hybrid 'crossover' 4x4 will start to roll off the company's Sunderland production lines early next year, and is likely to debut shared drive between an electric motor working one axle and a smaller petrol engine powering the other.

Toyota have yet to reveal exact details of the new Auris drivetrain, but the company has confirmed it will feature the ground-breaking Hybrid Synergy Drive seen in the brand's latest Prius model.

This means the Toyota newcomer, which is due to start production next summer from the company's Derbyshire plant, promises a full electric-only mode and ultra-low CO2 emissions.

Pricing has yet to be announced but if the Auris undercuts Honda's Insight - at £15,890 in base 'S' trim - the model may be a challenger for the title of cheapest hybrid available in the UK.

Speaking about his company's new model, Tadashi Arashima, President and CEO of Toyota Motor Europe, said: "Our decision to produce a full hybrid in the UK reflects both our confidence in the quality and commitment of the TMUK workforce and the strength of our long-standing partnership with the UK Government."

But not far behind in the race to debut a Brit-built hybrid is Land Rover - often unfairly singled out by eco-mentalists as a maker of 'gas guzzlers'.

The 4x4 specialist last month confirmed that a production version of its exciting LRX concept will go into production at the company's Halewood plant in Merseyside.

The latest Landy's 'green' credentials will be sealed by an electric-drive rear axle coupled to a 2-litre turbodiesel engine, capable of running on bio-diesel.

CO2 output is predicted to be around 120g/km, putting the 4x4 in the cut-price £35 car tax band.

Altogether this news is a great sign that, despite the economic downturn, major car producers are maintaining their commitment to British manufacturing and that the UK-based industry is at the cutting edge of new motor technologies.

And if it doesn't cure the obsession with 4x4s exhibited by some eco-mentalists, we don't know what will!

Let's hope they now decide to get behind a vital British industry, instead of working as they have been to date to cost tens of thousands of people their jobs.

Boris wobbles on c-charge pledge

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:57:00 +0000

The Evening Standard today splashes the news that London mayor Boris Johnson has 'shelved' plans to axe the western extended area of the city's congestion charge zone.

Scrapping the westward extension was a flagship pledge made during Boris's successful election campaign.

The repressive anti-car policies of his precedessor as mayor, Ken Livingstone, were said to be a major factor in his downfall from office.

The plan to scrap the western extension was greeted warmly by the overwhelming majority of businesses and residents in the area.

No surprise, given a large majority voted against the imposition of the extension in the first place, but were at the time completely ignored by Livingstone.

However, the idea that Boris has 'shelved' the plan - implying indefinitely - seems to be something of an overstatement.

While it does look like the pledge now will not be delivered "by 2010", as originally suggested, Johnson this afternoon rushed to confirm in no uncertain terms that the western zone will be removed "next year" - blaming "a number of tedious bureaucratic hoops" for the delay.

The confusion seems to have been caused originally by Kulveer Ranger, the Mayor's transport adviser.

Looking at his quote in the Standard, Ranger appears to have intimated that removing the western extension was merely an "aspiration" and that economic circumstances may now prevent it happening.

It's understandable how the Standard interpreted such political code as the plan being 'shelved'.

While removing the zone would cost TfL between £55 million and
£70 million in revenue, if the economy is a factor at all in the decision it is more a reason to scrap the zone as soon as possible than a justification for delay.

While TfL undoubtedly wants to cling onto that revenue, the reality is it comes out of the pockets of thousands of people likely already struggling to make ends meet in difficult times - money they could otherwise be spending in the shops and with local businesses also struggling to ride out the downturn.

Businesses themselves are hit twice by the c-charge, first by the reduction of passing traffic cutting visitors to their shops and second when their staff or delivery vans have to criss-cross the zone boundary and they have to pay the charge themselves.

So businesses in particular will not be at all happy at having to put up with the zone for potentially at least another year.

If Boris is going to maintain the great deal of goodwill he enjoyed at the last London election for his c-charge pledge, he'd better redouble his efforts to cut through that bureaucracy and get wielding his axe as soon as possible.

Aston Martin to challenge for outright victory at 2009 Le Mans

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:12:00 +0000

Aston Martin has announced its intention to compete for outright victory at this year's Le Mans 24 hour race, due to be held over the weekend of 13-14 June.

The Warwickshire-based sportscar maker intends to build on its success in the GT1 class and achieve overall victory fifty years after the marque first secured the top step on the classic endurance race podium.

While Aston's efforts with its DBR9 racer have delivered class victory two years in a row, competing for the overall title against the proven speed and endurance of the diesel-powered cars such as the Audi R15 and Peugeot 908 is an ambitious goal.

But in 2009, the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO), which sets the rules for the race, is introducing new regulations aimed at balancing the performance of petrol and diesel engined cars, which Aston believe hands them an opportunity to climb the rankings.

The attempt to emulate the legendary achievements of Aston's 1959 DBR1 driven by Carroll Shelby and Roy Salvadori will be spearheaded by two Works LMP1 cars (pictured) wearing the iconic blue and orange livery of Gulf Oil.

The new car will be based on the 2008 Charouz Racing System Lola, which came a respectable 9th place in last year's race, the first six positions being occupied by the ground breaking diesel racers.

Also working on the car together with Aston Martin will be Lola, Michelin, Koni and BBS. Power will be provided by the same production-based V12 engine from the class-winning DBR9, which also last year powered the Charouz Lola to a new Le Mans lap record for a petrol car.

To ensure complete focus on the LMP1 challenge, Aston Martin will not defend its double GT1 title in 2009. However, the company will continue to support its official partner teams and customers competing at the race.

Aston Martin chairman, David Richards, whose consortium took over Aston Martin from Ford in 2007, said;

"2009 is a hugely significant year for Aston Martin at Le Mans and the challenge of reclaiming victory in this famous race for Aston Martin and Great Britain was simply too great to ignore."

"However, we do not underestimate the task," he said. "Nonetheless, I see this as a great opportunity to showcase the ingenuity of British engineering talent."

'Bail out' turns washout

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:52:00 +0000

Unelected Secretary of State for Business, Peter Mandelson, has this afternoon made a statement on government plans to help the car industry.

Having been much hyped since December as a 'bail out' of the industry, following growing announcements of job losses and temporary shut downs, very little of substance has emerged.

One of the most-trailed measures was potential help for car company finance arms, to enable people who still want to buy a new car to get a loan in these times when banks are less keen to lend.

Such a plan would at least target the main problem - that demand for new cars has dropped off a cliff and car makers have stockpiles of unsold cars.

However it would not be specific help for British industry, as EU single market rules would prevent it being tied to the purchase of only British-made cars.

Yet despite the hype, all that today's statement offered was that the government was "looking at steps" on this front - a feeble response when the industry's troubles have been evident for months and action is desperately needed.

The Treasury is thought to be opposed to the idea, fearing it would set a precedent and open the floodgates to demands from other industries for the same treatment. Particularly from those within the also much-troubled electronics and furniture retail sectors.

Loan guarantees

The headline-grabbing measure, which no doubt most of the mainstream media will robotically retail, was the announcement of guarantees to 'unlock' loans of up to £1.3 billion from the European Investment Bank.

Plus a further £1 billion in loans was offered to fund non-EIB eligible investment that would be of particular benefit to Britain or to the advancement of green technology.

Responding later in the House of Commons, Mandelson's 'shadow' for the Conservatives, Ken Clarke, claimed that these loans had been announced previously and were nothing new.

Mandelson said that proposals for assistance would be considered on a "case by case" basis, and evidently seeking to slay any ghosts of the 70s he said that there would be "no operating subsidies".

Details as to the criteria by which such proposals will be judged were not given, but may emerge after a 'car summit' between government and major players in the industry, due tomorrow.

Long term fantasy

Speaking in the House of Lords, where there is no elected opposition to question him, Mandelson said that the government's proposals were designed to 'lay the foundations for a low carbon future'.

It's another example of an affliction of politicians that is becoming increasingly obvious in these troubled times. Calling it futuritis, author of the EUreferendum blog, Richard North, describes it as: "Unable to deal with the problems of the present ... they fix their eyes on some point in the future, when everything will come right. They thus ignore completely the disasters of today and tomorrow, painting their vision of distant sunlit uplands".

When it comes to the car industry, such 'low carbon future' long-termism is completely misplaced when, unless critical short term problems are relieved, there may be no car industry left.

Those problems were largely ignored by today's statement.

Jaguar reinvents XJ220 as stunning R8 beater

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:45:00 +0000

Exciting news for Jaguar fans this week, as Auto Express reveals that the company is planning to reinvent the legendary XJ220.

The magazine, well-known for its new car scoops, claims a dramatic new mid-engined sports car is being developed by Jaguar as a rival to the Audi R8.

While the concept is denied by Jaguar, the magazine claims that the car will make its debut at a major international motor show within the next 18 months - indicating that plans must already be well advanced.

In a nod to the marque's iconic E-Type, the two-seater is tipped to be badged the XE, heralding a return to a more raw, sporting side of Jaguar's heritage.

But this isn't the first Jaguar concept thought to be set for the XE badge. Last year it was speculated that it would adorn a Porsche Boxster rivalling baby coupe-convertible that would sit below the XK in the range.

Plans for an R8 rival would mark another big step in the company's revival of its dated model range.

XFR breaks record

The revelation comes as the sports version of Jaguar's new XF model has smashed the company's speed record.

In a graphic demonstration of the progress made in car design and engineering since the 1990s, an uprated four-door XFR saloon hit a top speed of 225.675 mph at the Bonneville Salt Flats, going even faster than the 217.1mph record set by the XJ220.

Rumours are that the minor developments to the showroom XFR that boosted the car to the record will debut on the road as a hotter XFR S model.

With a price that will undercut the BMW M5 by nearly £6,000, the flagship XFR is set to be a tough package to beat at the top of the executive saloon sector.

Looking ahead

Jaguar had a mixed year in 2008, launching the widely-praised new XF model and seeing UK sales rise by nine percent while many other luxury car brands faced a sales slump.

But this success was overshadowed by news towards the end of the year of extended shut downs at the company's Castle Bromwich plant and job losses.

The contrast between the company's sales success and the job losses has led some to suspect another agenda at work in the minds of new owners Tata.

Gloomy forecasts for sales during 2009 may be to blame, but some are wondering whether the company's British manufacturing operations and staff have been at greater risk than assurances given at the time the Indian company took over led us to believe.

With the company's current focus on developing its new XK and XF models, as well as launching an all-new luxury XJ saloon due in 2010, the XE is not likely to be seen in the showrooms before 2012.

Progress in 2008 but new threats loom

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:04:00 +0000

If you're wondering why this blog has been so quiet for the last couple of months, it's down to a sense that 2008 offered a glimmer of hope that car users are turning the corner against overbearing politicians and repressive eco-mentalists.

Wishful thinking? Probably. Maybe the recent drop in fuel prices and the temporary delay of road tax hikes announced back in the Pre-Budget Report has gone to our heads.

Our last posting back in October heralded the start of the debate over congestion charging in Manchester. Thankfully the plan was rejected resoundingly by almost 80% of local voters.

This was despite the best efforts of the government and its BBC supporters to bribe locals with the promise of billions of pounds of spending on public transport projects.

These were projects than Mancunians justifiably thought should be provided anyway, paid for out of the considerable taxes they have already handed over to the government - rather than the billions of pounds extra that congestion charging would have cost them.

C-charging under fire

Of all the projects dreamt up by today's politicians - who seem to regard car users as cash machines they can raid repeatedly whenever they've wasted too much money elsewhere - congestion charging took the biggest kicking of 2008.

Some months before Manchester's triumph, the archdeacon of the anti-car lobby, Ken Livingstone, was ousted as mayor of London - having threatened a completely unjustifiable £25 daily charge that would have hit a wide range of normal family car users.

Livingstone spun the plan as designed to target those dastardly 4x4s that the eco-extremists seem to have an irrational obsession about. Irrational, given most 4x4s are no bigger, nor as gas guzzling than many mid-range family cars.

Spun out of office

Trouble was, anyone who could glance at a car magazine knew that targetting just 4x4s by emissions was impossible and that far more people were going to be financially slammed by the massive increase than Ken claimed. So Ken was kicked out.

A lesson there for all politicians about the dangers of over-confidence in the ability to spin a political agenda in the face of blatantly contrary facts.

His successor, Boris Johnson, has already consulted local people and pledged to scrap the westward extended area of the London zone.

Almost 28,000 took part in the consultation, of whom 67% and 86% of businesses supported the removal of the zone - similar numbers to those opposing its introduction in the first place, but whom Livingstone simply ignored.

The zone will be shrunk to its original central area by 2010, but given current economic circumstances local businesses and people are pushing for the toll to be lifted sooner.

Anyone listening?

While locally-based congestion charging faced an overwhelming public battering in 2008 - in addition to the 1.8 million people who signed a Downing Street petition in 2007 - road pricing has not yet been driven off the government's agenda.

What is it going to take for these people to get the message?

This year the Department for Transport will press ahead with trials for a pay-as-you-drive scheme that could see car users paying £1.30 a mile at the busiest times.

The basis of the idea is to ration road space rather than provide the necessary capacity or a viable alternative - an approach which, if applied to hospitals or schools, would cause uproar.

In addition to the democratic insult of ignoring repeatedly expressed public opposition to the idea, according to the Daily Express trails have already cost £10 million and the bill is only going upwards.

Rationing roads

The government line is that the trials are designed to "inform the work of those local authorities who are considering taking forward local congestion charging".

But what council would still seriously consider such a scheme after the fate that befell policy-makers last year in London and Manchester?

Naive defenders of pay-as-you-drive - such as some long established organisations purporting to represent the interests of motorists - seem to have the idea that if such a scheme replaces road tax, or if fuel tax is reduced, then drivers could benefit.

Leaving aside, as those organisations sadly do, the privacy implications of individual movement-tracking, does anyone seriously imagine that the government would implement a system costing billions of pounds if it wasn't going to rake in more money from us in the long term than whatever taxes it replaces?

Further moves towards road pricing look set to remain the biggest policy threat to the finances of car users into 2009. But, of course, authorities both national and local are already planning many other petty annoyances to hinder and frustrate the vast majority of car users for whom there is no viable alternative to life on the road.

More about those in another post.

Manchester C-charge debate kicks off

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:55:00 +0000

The battle over plans to introduce Britain's biggest congestion charge zone in Manchester have begun in earnest as opponents have hit out at the proposed referendum as unbalanced and incomprehensible.

Of particular concern is that the congestion charge is not even mentioned on the proposed ballot paper.

The referendum question reads: "Do you agree with the Transport Innovation Fund proposals?" - a reference to the £3bn package of public transport improvements promised to Manchester by the government in return for agreeing to implement a charge from 2013.

The Greater Manchester Momentum Group (GMMG), a business alliance that opposes the charge, said almost half Manchester's residents did not know about the plans, despite a 14-week consultation.

"We feel strongly that the current suggestion [for the referendum] is unbalanced and . . . would mean little to many people who don't even know about the consultation," a spokesman said.

"Transport Innovation Fund is jargon and would mean little to many people, who didn't even know about the consultation."

As we commented here on this blog back in June, when the government gave the nod to the scheme, it's bizarre that Manchester is considering introducing congestion charging at all given admissions in London that the capital's landmark scheme has failed to cut congestion, evidence that the average speed of traffic in London is dropping, not increasing, and the pending outcome of a public consultation on whether the western extension to the zone should be scrapped altogether.

That the government and Manchester authorities seem prepared to ignore the evident failure and unpopularity of the London scheme indicates strongly that milking yet more cash from the already over-burdened car user is the only real motivation behind the plan.

The Manchester scheme will include two charging rings, one just inside the M60 and the other around the city centre. Drivers would pay to cross each at peak times when entering in the morning and leaving at night, in contrast to London's catch-all scheme.

Dave Goddard, leader of Stockport council and an opponent of the scheme has also criticised the referendum question.

He said: "Electoral Commission guidelines say the question should be in language people can understand. People understand the congestion charge, they do not understand 'Transport Innovation Fund'."

For the plans to come into effect, seven of the 10 Manchester boroughs must agree. It is expected that Mr Goddard and the leaders of Trafford and Bury councils, who also oppose the congestion charge, will be outvoted at a meeting of Greater Manchester authorities next week that will decide the referendum question.

Ballot papers will be sent out next month and must be returned by post by December 11. Though the poll has no legal force, council leaders have agreed to abide by the result.

Aston Martin revives Lagonda marque

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:17:00 +0000

Aston Martin has today confirmed the company's intention to revive the historic British Lagonda marque.

In a statement announcing the news, Aston Martin CEO Dr Ulrich Bez referred to the company's forthcoming four-door Rapide model, further raising speculation that the car may be badged as a Lagonda rather than Aston Martin.

Dr Bez said: "We will take elements of DNA from the past but will be very future orientated as we are with Aston Martin." Rapide is also a model name previously used by Lagonda.

By offering cars of a "different character" from Aston Martin and with "a unique design language", the move is a bid to expand the company's market presence from 32 to 100 countries worldwide.

Lagonda history

The last production outing for the famous marque, which was purchased by David Brown in 1947 together with Aston Martin and merged into one company, was the futuristic 1970s Aston Martin Lagonda.

While the car itself was beset by problems with its advanced electronics and did not earn a good reputation, the technical ambition it demonstrated as well as income generated from advance orders was credited with saving Aston Martin from bankruptcy.

Only a few bespoke four-door 1990s Aston Martin Virage models produced for export have since worn the Lagonda badge.

More jobs in Gaydon

The new Rapide is expected to add another 1,000 - 2,000 cars to Aston Martin's production numbers and create jobs for at least 200 more workers at its Warwickshire plant, with the facility having to be expanded with a new production line and developments to the body and paint shops.

A concept of the first new Lagonda will be revealed in 2009 with the car planned to be in production by 2012.

Government to review car tax plan

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:47:00 +0000

Following the revelation yesterday that the Prime Minister 'mis-spoke' when he said in Parliament that the majority of drivers would benefit from proposed car tax changes, Chancellor Alistair Darling has appeared in Parliament this morning to answer questions about the plans.

Finally confirming what other ministers and backbench MPs had already been pushing for, he indicated that the plan will be reviewed before the Pre-Budget Report, due in the Autumn.

Official estimates given yesterday to Conservative shadow Treasury minister Justine Greening in a Parliamentary answer revealed that vehicle excise duty will rise for 44% of vehicles made since 2001 - by up to £245 for the most polluting ones - but will fall for 33%.

An estimated nine million car users would have to pay more under the reforms.

Answering for the Treasury, Angela Eagle MP also admitted that five of the UK's 30 most popular cars would pay more.

So if you drive a 2.2l diesel Land Rover Freelander, a 1.6l unleaded Toyota Auris, a 2.2l diesel Honda CR-V, a 1.8l unleaded Vauxhall Vectra or a 1.6l unleaded Vauxhall Zafira, prepare for a wallet-bashing.

Most interestingly, the government's difficulties with getting the plan through Parliament seem to be greater than first envisaged.

Complaints from Labour backbenchers don't just seem to relate to the backdating of the changes to older cars made after March 2001 - thought to be the most contentious part of the proposals.

Speaking on the BBC News channel, Martin Salter - far from among the most rebellious of Labour MPs - complained that even "two years" was not enough time to give people a chance to change their car-buying behaviour.

This would suggest that the government faces problems getting the proposals through Parliament if they make the changes applicable to anything other than brand new cars.

But then, that would mean people are given a chance to dodge the higher charges by making alternative choices, and make the proposals actually 'green' - rather than the great fundraiser for the Treasury that they are actually designed to be.

What a dilemma, Darling!

The man's on a roll

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:47:00 +0000

The Evening Standard reports today that London's new mayor Boris Johnson has scrapped Ken Livingstone's plan to hit 'gas-guzzlers' with a £25 congestion charge.

The news follows reports that, in September, Boris will consult the public on scrapping the westward extension of the zone.

According to the Standard, the High Court has confirmed today that the paperwork needed to end former London mayor Ken Livingstone's key policy had been completed.

Band G injustice

The scheme was due to change in October this year. But now there will be no increase in charge to £25 for drivers of Band G vehicles.

Band G doesn't just include expensive sports cars or 4x4s but many typical mid-size family cars, including estate cars and people carriers. So the £25 daily charge would have hit families the hardest.

Targetting Band G for excessively punitive charges would also have threatened the jobs of tens of thousands of people working in Britain's sports and executive car industry, by making their products financially unviable to run.

The discount for cars in Bands A and B, which would have resulted in thousands of cars driving into the zone for free and adding to congestion, has also been removed.

TfL study slammed plans

As we reported back in October, Livingstone's proposed changes to the congestion charge scheme were slammed by Transport for London's (TfL) own study into the plans.

Their Impact Assessment, authored by environmental consultants AEA, pointed out that not only would the effect of the changes be "an increase in cars moving within the zone" - defeating the purpose of an anti-congestion scheme - but that "Increased congestion would mean that all vehicles would move more slowly leading to increases in CO2 emissions."

Outbreak of sense

So Boris's actions are a welcome sign that he is being guided by the advice of experts in the best interests of limiting congestion and, therefore, emissions.

Rather than the pursuit of blinkered class warfare, or the twisted idea of a link between emissions and 4x4s exclusively, demonstrated by his predecessor.

TfL commissioner Peter Hendy said: "We will be working with the Mayor to strive to cut CO2 emissions from transport in London by promoting cycling and walking, encouraging people to drive in a more efficient way and by cutting Transport for London's own CO2 emissions."

Let's hope this new outbreak of sense in London starts to spread throughout the country. But what next for Boris? May we suggest another look at this.

UK fuel cheapest in Europe without taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:04:00 +0000

According to a recent Evening Standard report, fuel in Britain would be the cheapest in western Europe if it wasn't for taxes piled on top by the government.

Official figures published by Business Secretary John Hutton show that Britain has the cheapest diesel in western Europe once taxes are excluded, with unleaded petrol being the second cheapest.

The revelations expose the fallacy of the prevailing view that nothing can be done about high fuel prices because of the rising price of oil - a piece of government spin that's increasingly being retailed by the mainstream media.

In reality, factors under direct control of the government such as the huge percentage of the retail price that is down to fuel duty and VAT could affect the price we pay at the pump a great deal, and do much to ease the pain being suffered by hauliers and car users struggling to pay their fuel bills.

Consumer fuel prices have rocketed in recent months as the cost of oil spirals. While fuel duty has remained the same at 50.3p per litre, the government has profited from the extra VAT on the increased prices.

Yet the government remains disinterested in giving any of that extra cash back to ease the growing burden on car users.

Chancellor Alistair Darling has signalled that he may postpone the 2p fuel duty rise due in October, but hauliers are demanding a 25p a litre rebate and a government struggling to maintain popularity should more seriously consider actually cutting duty.

The AA has called for the tax on fuel to be published at forecourts so drivers can keep track of how much we're paying the Treasury, which sounds an extremely sensible idea and one way that fuel companies could extricate themselves from the blame for higher prices.

Boris consults over scrapping C-charge extension

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:19:00 +0000

The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has announced a public consultation on the future of the western extension of the congestion charging zone, which will include an option to "scrap it".

The news that the London scheme may be shrunk comes at a particularly inopportune moment for the government, as it continues to push for congestion charging to be introduced in other major British cities, like Manchester.

Criticising his predecessor's February 2007 expansion of the central London invisible toll scheme in the face of overwhelming local opposition, Boris Johnson says he has an "open mind" towards making changes and promises it will be "a genuine consultation".

The consultation will not be a 'yes/no' referendum on the extension but will include various options such as changing the hours of operation.

The plan will also include the carrying out at the same time of an attitudinal survey, factored to match the population of London as a whole.

Local residents and businesses will have a five-week opportunity to express their views on the westward extension, starting in September, with Transport for London particularly keen to hear from those within or on the borders of the extension.

Boris Johnson said: “This will be an opportunity for everyone with experience of the extension to tell me whether they want to see it removed, improved or if they are simply unmoved.”

Revolt looms over car tax hike

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:10:00 +0000

The number of Labour backbenchers supporting a parliamentary motion urging the government to reconsider massive increases to car tax has reached 45.

With the government only having a majority of 66, the number of rebels is now more than enough to block the scheme - if they vote in accordance with their views when it comes to the crunch.

It only takes 34 Labour MPs to vote with the opposition parties to thwart government plans.

Some rebels are likely to be bought off if the Chancellor Alistair Darling abandons plans to make the changes retrospective to cars made since 2001.

However, even the scale of the increases for very average mid-range cars made since March 2006 is likely to trigger widespread public dismay.

MPs fear the scheme could be as politically damaging as the storm over the abolition of the 10p income tax band, and even two ministers - Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Business Secretary John Hutton - have indicated that there should be a re-think.

Owners of typical family cars such as the Ford Galaxy, Vauxhall Zafira and Renault Espace will face an increase in duty of up to £245 by 2010.

Ronnie Campbell, the Blyth Valley MP who tabled the motion, said: "It's unfair that people bought their cars a few years ago not knowing that the government were going to put this road tax on.

"When you think that the 10p (tax abolition) was costing people £200 a year; the outbreak of that one was enormous. When people get their road-tax letter through the door next year and find they have an extra £200 to pay, well, I don't have to say any more, do I?"

Another signatory to the Commons motion, Angus MacNeil, SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, said it was clear, as we have been saying since the scheme was announced, that the increase in VED had not been thought through and that Mr Darling had taken a sledgehammer to the issue.

He told The Herald: "It's going to be like the 10p tax: sooner or later they will have to do a U-turn."

In total, 62 MPs have signed the motion, with 9 Conservatives, 7 Liberal Democrats and one SNP MP joining the Labour rebels.

While such Early Day Motions have little real power, they are influential in indicating backbench opinion on a policy before it comes to a key vote in Parliament.

The government's Finance Bill incorporating the plans to is due for further consideration in Parliament next week.

Government gives go-ahead for Manchester C-charge

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:44:00 +0000

Transport secretary Ruth Kelly has in the last hour announced the government's support for the introduction of congestion charging in Manchester.

In the now classic style of Bungler Brown's government, the news comes despite recent admissions in London that the capital's scheme has failed to cut congestion, evidence that the average speed of traffic in London is dropping, not increasing and increasing pressure for the scheme to be shrunk.

Hardly the optimal moment to announce an expansion of the idea, even without considering financial factors like car users already being hammered by fuel prices and people generally feeling the pinch.

It would also be unwise for Manchester residents to assume that the initial charge of £5 for entering the zone would remain at that level for very long, or that the boundaries of the two-ringed invisible toll wouldn't soon shift from their initial positions in order to increase revenue.

A public consultation will now be held on the plan.

The government will provide £1.5bn to support the scheme, with the rest of the £2.8bn cost coming coming from the city authorities themselves.

Where the extra funds for the over-runs that inevitably blight major government schemes will come from is not clear, with local council taxpayers potentially having to foot the bill.

Responding to the government's statement, Theresa Villiers MP asked why three out of ten councils in Manchester oppose the plan.

Stockport, Trafford and Bury councils are no longer supporting the bid for funding and councillors in Bolton - where Ruth Kelly's own highly marginal seat is located - have promised to hold a public referendum on the issue.

Andrew Simpson, chairman of the Greater Manchester Momentum Group (GMMG) - a lobby group formed by major businesses opposed to congestion charging - said:

"It's right that we want improved public transport, but if the cost of that is something that's going to cost people in this region up to £1,200 a year to get to work, then I think that's going to be very bad for our jobs and our economy."

The group has support from major Manchester stores Harvey Nichols, Lookers and Makro, along with the owners of the Trafford Centre and a range of other business organisations.

In typical fashion, the scheme is being sold as a means to deliver 'a first-class public transport system'. Though where all the money Manchester residents - not least car users - have already stumped up in taxes has gone if not not towards providing just such a system is a more pertinent question.

Now we are expected to stump up even more from the public pocket in order to introduce a system that will hit car users with even more bills.

Is there no end to this government's greed for our cash? As ever, aimed first of all at soft-target car users who already pay far more in taxes to the Treasury than are spent on road transport improvements.

Car tax row hots up

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:26:00 +0000

The debate over plans for a drastic hike in car tax is starting to get interesting, amid increasing fears within government that the revised scheme could prove as politically damaging as the storm over the abolition of the 10p income tax band.

The plans, announced in Alistair Darling's first Budget back in March, will create six additional car tax bands and introduce an up to £950 graduated ‘showroom tax’ on cars in the upper tax bands.

Despite being spun as a 'green' move that will persuade people to buy lower-emission, lower-taxed cars, the Treasury has already admitted that once the revised system is in force more than £700m extra a year will be delivered into the government's coffers.

A very clear indication from the horse's mouth that people will not, in fact, switch to the lower-emissions cars that attract reductions in the tax rate and the scheme is therefore largely useless in 'green' terms (but clearly very useful in government fundraising terms).

No surprise, then, that Chancellor Alistair Darling decided to try to introduce the scheme regardless.

Money or popularity?

Already reeling from severe public slapdowns in recent elections, ministers and MPs are now starting to worry that both the scale of the increases combined with the number of people set to be affected to some degree will be an explosive recipe, capable of triggering a further dramatic slide in the government's popularity.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Business Secretary John Hutton have been the first to break ranks with the Prime Minister and his puppet Chancellor to suggest that it may not be the best plan to pile severe extra costs on people right when they're feeling the pinch.

They have hinted that the Autumn pre-Budget statement would be a good opportunity to take a 'fresh look' at the plans.

Backbenchers are also asserting themselves over the issue, with 35 Labour MPs (and others to make 42 in total) so far having backed a Commons motion by Ronnie Campbell MP urging ministers to reconsider.

Retrospective tax on older cars

A particular target for review is the most controversial element of the scheme - to impose tax at the new highest rate retrospectively to cars bought between 2001 and 2006.

A host of family cars bought before March 2006, many used everyday for the school run, will see their road tax double from £210 to more than £430 unless the plans are changed.

This double-whammy aspect of the scheme will hit those who bought cars in good faith a few years ago, not knowing the government would drastically increase the road tax on them. And make it harder for those people to switch to lower-emissions cars, as the new excessively punitive tax rate will severely cut their existing car's value.

Good time for pause

Given his already pretty significant woes, and the growing controversy over out-of-control fuel prices, does Gordon Brown really want to further wind up 18m 'middle Britain' car users?

As the 'consensus' over climate change is brought ever further into doubt by severe wintery conditions across the globe and growing lists of scientists contradicting the man-made global warming orthodoxy, now would be the perfect time for Brown to demonstrate responsible leadership and pause for a re-think.

Richmond at it again

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:09:00 +0000

Hot on the heels of their bizarre 'emissions-cutting' scheme that encourages people to drive their cars to work rather than leave them parked at home (an allegedly 'green' scheme that pushes people to concrete over their gardens in order to park their cars off ridiculously over-charged streets) Richmond Council in south London have come up with a new wheeze.

This time the plan to separate the borough's car users from yet more of their cash involves charges for 'drop-off' parking permits at local schools.

And once again they seem set on trying to daub this blatant tax hike as 'green'.

Top charge of £75

At the moment, parents can use a free permit provided by schools allowing them to park on double yellow lines or bays for ten minutes while they deliver or collect their children.

So far, so reasonable.

But the council have announced that, from September, a 'sliding scale' will be used to charge parents for these currently free permits, based on the CO2 emissions produced by their vehicles.

The top charge is reportedly going to be an outrageous £75 for dropping your kids off at school in anything from an average-sized family car upwards.

'Green' paint stripped

While the full details of the sliding scale have not yet been revealed (a bit of standard PR that tries to get the headlines out of the way before the gruesome details are exposed), the council's past form makes it likely that the vast majority of parents driving even the smallest cars will have to fork out extra cash where they don't have to currently.

The council's similar emissions-based scheme for residents' parking permits penalises with greatly increased charges those with cars in tax Band D and upwards.

That includes some models of small city cars like the Mini, Ford Fiesta and Nissan Micra. A very different story beyond the oft-used spin about attacking 'gas-guzzling 4x4s', and one that utterly strips away any claim that the scheme is actually about the environment rather than raising cash yet again from soft-target car users.

Sadly, going by the headlines, "4x4s" are the furthest the spin-vulnerable traditional media ever read into such plans.

Scheme condemned as 'unfair'

The council's plan has been roundly condemned by representatives of parent teacher and car user groups.

Margaret Morrissey of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations has called the scheme "unfair and unrealistic", quite rightly pointing out, "Many families have three or four children, and they need the space to fit child seats that the Government insists on."

And the AA's Paul Watters said: "People carriers are very efficient at getting kids to school, considering many are seven-seaters. It might be a better idea to remove the many smaller cars."

Lib Dem warning

As a Liberal Democrat-run council, Richmond's actions give a worrying indication of what sort of faux-green financial repression car users big and small can expect if the Lib Dems achieve any governing power.

Something for us all to bear in mind with local elections looming and even a general election on the horizon.

But spare a thought for the poor car-using residents of Richmond, who clearly face endless demands on their wallets between now and their next local elections in 2010.

Unless they fight back against blatant rip off tax hikes, even when they are labelled 'green'.

C-charge has not cut jams, admits TfL chief

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart Coster) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:23:00 +0000

According to today's Evening Standard, Transport for London's Michèle Dix - managing director of planning - has admitted that congestion in central London is back at levels last seen before the C-charge came into effect.

Speaking at a transport conference in London, she admitted that congestion has now returned to how it was before the controversial road-charging scheme was introduced.

But it seems she stopped short of apologising to car users for the vast cost of the failed scheme.

Confirming the conclusion of an earlier study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, Transport for London said the freed road space created by the 21% drop in traffic levels had been taken up by other road users, making congestion worse.

This is the first time TfL itself has publicly admitted to such a sharp rise in congestion in central London.

Ms Dix also revealed the extent to which public opposition to road tolls had made TfL think twice about extending the congestion charge zone to the capital's outer boroughs.

A petition on the Prime Minister's website calling for national roadpricing plans to be axed attracted a record-breaking 1.8 million signatories.

"It made government turn off charging, which has made it difficult for us," Ms Dix told the conference.

"If road-user charging was to be extended, we would have to make it more acceptable. We would have to improve public transport" she said.

Her admission serves as a major warning for any city considering introducing similar road-charging schemes - particularly those whose public transport system is thought to be less effective than London's.

The news also supports an Evening Standard survey conducted in February, and Department for Transport figures released last year, revealing that morning rush-hour traffic speeds had fallen to 9.3mph, below the 9.9mph recorded before the C-charge was introduced.

Paul Watters of the AA said: "It had become increasingly clear that benefits originally delivered by the charge were being eroded.

"Last year, TfL's own monitoring report said the initial 30% improvement in congestion had slipped to just 8% - now it seems even that gain may have gone."

Gordon Taylor of West London Residents' Association accused TfL management of "complete failure".