mike.perry wrote:I still think that there should be space to comment on policies that affect motoring and classic cars in particular, the freezing of the historic vehicle status, scrappage scheme, taxes on parking fines, where are the victims of an overstay in a parking slot? We should also keep a look out for any future legislation which may cross the Channel and interfere with our freedom to enjoy the use of classic cars.
I agree entirely and it’s largely a case of rules being for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise.
When I criticised the Prime Minister (After much correspondence with him or his officials, over the issue of historic road tax exemption) over what I concluded could only be a petty, personal, anti classic car whim, I was informed that I had made a political remark (I had, by way of balance, said that I held out no hope, that the leader of the opposition would be any more amenable, yet this, it seems was not political

) and the post ended up locked and looking as if something profane had been moderated (I had to post my reply on the other forum). I have put these points to MMOC HQ and expressed my dissatisfaction with the way the matter was handled but so far they have not replied. They had better reply before my subs are due, if they want a “Reply” and some money from me!!
As Mike says, we need to keep an eye open for legislation, that could have a negative impact on our harmless hobby (For me I would call old cars a way of life). Provided the comments posted refer to the matter at hand, I don’t think that should really be classed as “Political”. It could be argued that since politicians make (Or at least put their names to) our laws, to criticise such laws implies criticism the politicians nominally responsible for it and is therefore political. In the context of fools and wise men, I think such an argument belongs to the former category.
In my constituency, one party (Apart from when an “Independent” stands, due to a difference between the local and national party) has an iron grip on the seat, to the extent that a plastic bag could get elected, if it represented said party (I haven't bothered to fill out an electoral questionaire in ages). All parties have safe seats and it is often in the marginal seats that elections are won and lost. In order to win elections, parties have to appeal to a majority of these swaying voters. Whilst the classic car fraternity has a sizeable number of (In some cases influential) people in its ranks, to the average tabloid courting mainstream political party, we are more use a scapegoats, than as potential voters.
To illustrate what I mean, if in order to tackle “Global warming”, a party said that people would have to learn to make do and mend (Start looking after their cars and keep them longer, rather than planning on what the next new one would be), clock up fewer air miles, etc etc, they would never get elected. Being “Green” is now very much in fashion (Though I don’t wish to go into the pros and cons of “Global warming”) and so politicians have to be seen to be green. If they said, we want to encourage people to buy new cars, because new cars are much cleaner, the average status seeking, neighbour impressing “Motorist

” would be more than happy to go along with it (Indeed it endorses what most of them want to do anyway). If, as part of this, measures were taken to remove all “Old polluters” from the road, such people would be happy to go along with it, even if they knew it was nonsense. So long as the flak is directed elsewhere, they’ll be happy. So far as the classic car lobby is concerned, what’s half a million votes in the great scheme of things?