£2,000 for your old banger
- Thread starter London_Calling
- Start date
That's some subsidy!
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
It's a fucking crap idea.
dessiato
4 years and I still cry sometimes
Here in Portugal the scheme only applies to trading in for new and nearly new cars. As a result the cheapest cars are at the level of the scrappage price.
As for the problem of future classics, as I said in an earlier post, the effect here is that cars that previously would not be considered classic are being 'saved' as being of interest.
Even Portugal is ahead of the game! The downside has been that now most of the old cars are off the road, and no-one is buying because they don't need to! The boom that was so apparent at the start of the scheme soon flattened as those who wanted to, or could afford to, changed their cars. Now the demand for new cars is about the same as it was before this subsidy was in place.
But OTOH - Fiat and Peugeot have huge plants in Slovenia and Poland (that's where the new Cinquecento is made, isn't it?), and then the Honda/Nissan plants are in the UK.
But I agree with most of the previous people: this is a crap idea because it doesn't know what it is. Is it an enviromental move? An economic stimulus idea? Is it to support the car industry?
I can't see this creating much extra employment in the UK when there are already such massive stocks of unsold cars lying around the world anyway.
subversplat
writer of wrongs
That would be fantastic - you could buy a £50 banger out of the back of the Friday Ad and trade it in against a shiny new £2000 125cc bike
As it stands though, this is a dumb idea.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Probably still worth a punt on ebayThat would be fantastic - you could buy a £50 banger out of the back of the Friday Ad and trade it in against a shiny new £2000 125cc bike
As it stands though, this is a dumb idea.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This just seems like populist nonsense to me and along with the Heathrow extension just further reinforces my impression that the current government's commitment to any actual serious "green" policy doesn't go any further than empty words.
If you're going to throw money around in order to protect jobs, at least throw it at something that it actually makes sense to encourage.
Just a couple of months ago they awarded one of the biggest train-building contracts in recent years to a Japanese consortium in preference to one based around the long established Derby works.
If you're going to throw money around in order to protect jobs, at least throw it at something that it actually makes sense to encourage.
Just a couple of months ago they awarded one of the biggest train-building contracts in recent years to a Japanese consortium in preference to one based around the long established Derby works.
That this is being considered shows how much the government is in the pockets of big businesses.
We want less cars
why on earth does the motoring economy deserve to have this vast public subsidy? Why not bicycles? Why should motorists be rewarded for owning a car when not owning one should be so much worthier?
We want less cars
why on earth does the motoring economy deserve to have this vast public subsidy? Why not bicycles? Why should motorists be rewarded for owning a car when not owning one should be so much worthier?
All other things being equal (i.e. assuming that the Hitachi consortium bid was actually better), I don't think that was the wrong decision: protectionism just got us crappier+more expensive products in the past, and we'd just end up locking UK companies out of export contracts through retaliation.
But I agree with you that if you wanted to spend government money on an industry, the car industry wouldn't be that one!
dessiato
4 years and I still cry sometimes
That this is being considered shows how much the government is in the pockets of big businesses.
We want less cars
why on earth does the motoring economy deserve to have this vast public subsidy? Why not bicycles? Why should motorists be rewarded for owning a car when not owning one should be so much worthier?
Could it be that about 800000 jobs are based around the car industry? How many does the bicycle industry support?
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
That this is being considered shows how much the government is in the pockets of big businesses.
We want less cars
why on earth does the motoring economy deserve to have this vast public subsidy? Why not bicycles? Why should motorists be rewarded for owning a car when not owning one should be so much worthier?
No, the majority actually dont want less cars, more efficient possibly. Maybe on this board its more skewed towards that direction, but id still bet anyone not lucky enough to be in London and have a public transport network thats actually halfway sufficient damn well needs some form of private transport more sufficient for purpose than a bicycle. Given the apparent congestion in London, theres a sizeable portion there that find it necessary aswel.
The subsidy is to try and help save the 800k jobs in the motoring industry as you seem to have conveniently ignored. Motorists arent being rewarded, motor industry workers, there families and associated businesses that supply them are being bailed out in a way that attempts to sound better than just throwing cash at it. Whether it is or not is another thing, but for the millions of people this will positively effect if it has the desired outcome the point is somewhat moot.
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
Errr, Idk what kind of training they can get in any kind of a hurry thats going to be quickly looking to take on 800,000 people, how you think they would sustain themselves and there families throughout this retraining period to even start with the massive list of problems with that idea. Aswel as the problem of then uprooting over 1% of the UK population to move them to wherever these non-existant jobs come from in a recession with excess unemployment as it is.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Around 80 % of all cars sold in the UK are built for the export market so this subsidy will have little impact.
There are much better ways to both stimulate employment and help to move an economy to a low carbon one. This subsidy will do little to help employment and I suspect it will only increase carbon emissions.
Is employment a valid reason for every industry to get government cash? Defence, Nuclear, Foreign owned banks, Coal...
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
Wasnt aware of it being that high a percentage, if so how come the subsidies in other countries havent impacted the industry here in a greater manner? genuine question Im not trying to be obtuse.
Maybe this scheme is expected to increase demand and hence increase the percentage that are sold within the country?
Not sure how foreign owned banks come into this in any manner, defence ive got seperate issues with anyway, nuclear unfortunately seems like it may be a reality to meet energy demands especially with older stations going out of commission, especially if there is a drive to switch to electric cars, which would increase the electricity demands of the UK roughly 50% if there was a full switch based on current technology. Coal comes into the same category as nuclear until there exists a valid mass production alternative.
Whilst the industries may not hold up to certain moral or environmental arguments at this time, those employed by them Im sure would rather in the meantime they continued to be in employment and able to exist. Being out of work myself Im well aware its a fairly shit existence if you arent careful, even more so if you have commitments and dependants counting on you being able to earn.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
I just checked and it's only about 15% of cars built in this country that are sold here. Perhaps subsidies in other countries are not felt here because the motor industry is very automated - meaning that the money goes into machines before jobs.
I mentioned those other industries as examples of private enterprise that offers employment as reasons to get public cash. Partly to follow up JWH argument that public money should be spent wisely - not just given to any (failing) private industry that uses employment as an argument to demand cash.
I have also just lost my job. But a subsidy that helps people buy new cars is of no help to me or anyone else. Every pound spent on private transport is money that has to be withheld from say, buses or trains which are more labour intensive.
You may be interested to hear of another great goverment plan. 27 million to Land Rover so they can make 'green' 4x4's - yes Land Rover!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ives-Jaguar-Land-Rover-27m-for-green-4X4.html
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
Ah can see its very automated, would just think demand was well demand regardless of whose making the thing. Higher demand means more cash from the sales, therefore more available to keep the industry turning over in whatever form its currently in.
Being in Cornwall with no private transport after some moron nicked my motorbike and the police decided to spend 6 months investigating me for fraud despite the complete lack of monetary sense that would have made. Combined with some of the worst public transport Im yet to experience in this country Id love to have something actually useful that means I dont need to spend almost an hour to travel 10 miles at times, are completely knackered past 11pm or on Sundays. Problem is the investment required to make it useful in somewhere like this just isnt feasible for all sorts of reasons and what they do do with it seems beyond belief in its ineffectiveness.
Public money definitely needs to be spent wisely, dont know the exact monetary ins and out of how this is supposed to be effective. Under scrutiny it does appear to be of questionable value. Hence my proviso of 'if it has the desired outcome' in my first post.
Green 4x4s? lol.. Even if they did manage to come up with something that worked well. Exactly how many people is the product going to be of any use to? Other than those driving the things with no need for the 4x4 capability to begin with I cant see whose gonna buy this. Even combined with the 2k relief to help those who actually need a 4x4 for work reasons or that live in rural areas I dont see them being that affordable.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, I also wouldn't really be in favour of "protectionism" as such; in a way that was a bad example. I guess what I was meaning that rather than awarding the contract to a competitive bidder, the money being used to bail out the car industry in various ways could be being used to support other manufacturing industries, like the railway works at Derby, to help them become more competitive in the bids that they do make, and therefore gain more contracts.
Other than that, spend the money directly on public transport - new bus routes and rebuilding rail lines just for example. Both of those would generate jobs and be of benefit to people in general.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This, combined with the fact that people would still be able to use the £2000 to buy a car that wasn't made in the UK anyway really makes this policy look properly daft.
It effectively is just rewarding car-owners for buying cars, and encouraging the scrapping of lots of cars when as far as I'm aware the general consensus is that usually it is more energy efficient to run an existing car to the end of its life than to scrap it and build a new (more efficient) one.
It's so daft that I think I might write to my MP about it.
oneflewover
Following "The Tigers"
There is a good reason for the subsidy in France and Germany, if you go there try to see a Nissan or Honda, you would be very hard pushed.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
The 'green' benefit is especially dubious when you think about anyone with a new car is probably more likely to do more miles then they would in an old banger.
Also I expect many people with a qualifying car would be thinking about getting rid of their car completely - where as this scheme only encourages people to get another one.
Also I expect many people with a qualifying car would be thinking about getting rid of their car completely - where as this scheme only encourages people to get another one.
1.1m people in UK employed by financial services sector, it's single largest component of GDP, largest taxpaying sector etc etc. It also just got a big chunk of cheap government money.
I agree that it's difficult and possibly unrealistic to expect everyone to retrain and move because their jobs in the automotive sector aren't going to be there in the long term - but at the same time, there's no point in the government giving money to car companies to keep workers employed. a) there are too many leaks in the mechanism which mean it won't work b) the subsidy is hard to cut off c) if the only point is to keep them working, they might as well be working doing something that there is a need for. But there are millions of unsold cars in the world, they're cheaper than ever, and the industry doesn't really need any more help (just the workers).
And, of course, most of these car workers live in Tory - I mean, New Labour - constituencies. So the rest of UK taxpayers can pay for Gordon to buy off those disaffected Labour voters. Great.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
A bribe for rich people who can afford a new car? If I scrap my worthless 16 year old car and buy one that is 6 years old will I get any money - NO!!!!
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
Only useful if there is finance for new cars.
One of the reasons the US car industry has tanked, practically over night the finance for new cars dried up completely. I'm wondering if this is the reason that its happened here. I can't see the average worker wanting to stump up 10 grand for a car right now, even if they had it in the bank.
One of the reasons the US car industry has tanked, practically over night the finance for new cars dried up completely. I'm wondering if this is the reason that its happened here. I can't see the average worker wanting to stump up 10 grand for a car right now, even if they had it in the bank.
Cloud
Omar Commin!
I have reached that point in life where I realise I will NEVER own a new car.
Our current vehicle is over twenty years old but it would take more than two grand to convince me that signing up for the remaining ten grand or so that it would take to buy a new car would be a good idea under the circumstances.
Our current vehicle is over twenty years old but it would take more than two grand to convince me that signing up for the remaining ten grand or so that it would take to buy a new car would be a good idea under the circumstances.
It's complete insanity. The government is borrowing money from overseas (when it already owes dangerous amounts), to induce people to actively destroy things of value - i.e. working cars. This money will have to be paid back by all of us at a later date, so money that you might use to buy a new car in the future is effectively being spent to destroy cars that exist at the moment.
These are the actions of a desperate, fag-end govt that has lost control and lost the plot.
These are the actions of a desperate, fag-end govt that has lost control and lost the plot.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
I agree
They should do the right thing and reduce taxation in particular on environmental green taxation which is turning into complete farce
They should be encouraging motorists to keep their existing vehicles as long as possible and trying to reduce manufacturing to a minimum. Maybe incentives to recycle old vehicles with known good salvaged parts and getting them back on the road.
Could spend some money on reducing the carbon emissions of existing cars as well. It could be done here as well rather than a large proportion of the money that people who might be induced to buy new cars spend going overseas, probably to the same countries that are lending us the money for this folly in the first place. 
Similar threads
