Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Phil I
Quick wheres the off switch!!!

Happy Motoring Phil I
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Dizzy {P}
I'm definitely there with you, Phil.

Clarkson, Livingstone, Howard, Hewitt -- exactly the correct order of reasons NOT to watch!
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Robin
Are you kidding? This is going to be hilarious, compulsive viewing.

I;m looking forward to the fight already
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - volvoman
Let's hope it turns into one Robin - it might be the only way we can get rid of Red Ken !
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Graham
Mmm Ken wants us to use trains - and they're taking 100 off the timetable!
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Carmad 10000
I think the entire thing will be boring - im definitely watching something else. Personally, i think clarkson is a big headed plonker and i reckon they should ship him off to australia.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Trisha TR
One to watch me thinks. Clarkson at least speaks his mind (sometimes with not much thought), doesn't concern himself with do-gooding Politically correct liberal meddlers and is passionate about his motoring. Red Ken is dynosaur from the left who is taxing the poor from entering London... and I thought his politics would mean he'd want to clobber the rich?
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - No Do$h
Trish, that was before he became well off.

Champagne socialists.... Pah!

No Dosh - but then who has?
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - BrianW
"Red Ken is dynosaur from the left who is taxing the poor from entering London... "

How's that? Everybody knows that it's only the rich that have cars and the poor have 24 hours per day access to Ken's favourite "public transport"...........taxis.
Still learning (I hope)
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - madf
Waste of time imo.

Polticians talk..and talk and talk.. about all they are good for.

Clarkson talks with a good turn of phrase.

I find Michael Howard (based on his past) an MP whom I trust 0%

And Patricia Hewitt is 100% reliable .. you can rely on her.. to be wrong:-)
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Oz
Give us a break Carmad! I know we stuffed you in the cricket, but you can't hate us that much! ;-)
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Simon Templar

Another weak comedy programme. No thank you very much.

Simon T.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - cockle {P}
Sorry, I seem to disagree with a fair number of you.
For me the fact that there might actually be a real impassioned argument on Question Time will actually make me watch tonight. I used to be addicted to the programme up until a few years back but I slowly found it to be more and more boring, too much spin and too many sterile comments designed to upset no one.
One senior manager I know says that he knows when things are healthy in his company because people care enough about what they're arguing for to bang the table. He might not agree with their point of view but at least they care enough to worry about it and that means they are committed.
IMHO that is one of this country's problems, no one seems to care enough to bang the table, not at the top at any rate. I must admit that I'm no great fan of JC but he does hold forthright views and is not afraid to air them, I think he could be a breath of fresh air tonight and I for one will be watching to see.

Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Keith S
I can't wait. Even if its just for the Brunel banter!
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - wemyss
Don't forget it's not Clarkson asking the questions but the audience!.
And they are usually the political and other events of the last week.
Hope you're not disappointed.
But in any case red Ken is a veteran politician and it's highly unlikely a motoring correspondant is going to unsettle him.
I fear Clarky is out of his class in this company.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - wemyss
Hey it's looking better.
Dimbledy just appeared to say there may be a case of road rage on tonights programme.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Flat in Fifth
well I thought Jezza held his end up rather OK. Made the point about traffic lights, bus lanes despite being cut off. Pity he relied on the argument about the smelly public to rubbish public transport.

He went up in my estimation due to him seriously upsetting Patricia Hewitt on two occasions.

BTW was that 1 in 20 an asylum seeker statistic correct?

after all 98.2% of statistics are made up on the spot, allegedly
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - smokie
He was OK, and performed his function well - he raised a few laughs and, as mentioned, put Hewitt on the spot a bit.

I like JC in his natural habitat, but would say his style is not suited to serious shows like Question Time. But they often have a "lightweight" these days to counterbalance the dull politicians. Someone on the show said (Ken, wasn't it?) - dumbing down.

I also like Ken, he knows full well when he is being "outrageous" but has a serious rational side when he lets it through. I thought his comments on Iraq were good at the start of the show, and I admire him for the congestion charging plans, and hope it works out.

I thought the point JC made about "it should be £50" was very valid, even though he was trying to be humorous. I don't believe it will be shop workers and other low paid staff that it will affect - such people couldn't afford to park in London, and would find it cheaper to use public transport anyway, even if they can afford to run a car.

Wasn't it a small audience tonight? Where on earth do they find them? Such a diverse group of people, as far as I could see.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - volvoman
Bit of a let down all in all ! I think JC forgot he wasn't on Top Gear.

Hewitt lived up fully to my expectations however - a vacuous waste of space obsessed with PC !
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - BrianW
What Ken L didn't say was as interesting as what he did say.

He went on ad infinitum about buses. Clarkson had a very valid point that even if they had a clear road they stop for goodness knows how long every two hundred yards (not 20 as he said).

Virtually no mention of the tubes, IMHO the only way to travel any distance in London. Strange since he has spent millions in legal fees argueing about the funding arrangements.
No mention at all about cross-London rail services (Cross-Rail from east to west and the north-south one whose name escapes me)

No realistic answer how the tubes, (since the target of the Charge is commuters who will be travelling considerable distances, not just a couple of bus stops) are going to cope with the travellers displaced from the roads.

No mention of what sort of numbers we are talking about. One eigth displacement was mentioned, but is this one eigth of ten thousand, 100,000 or one million?

No indication as to whether any surveys had been conducted to find out whether car users would actually transfer and if so to what alternative mode.

No assessment of the effect on the areas immediately outside the zone.

Altogether it left too many questions and showed how shallow the thinking behind the Charge has been.
Still learning (I hope)
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - HF
IMHO that is one of this country's problems, no one seems
to care enough to bang the table, not at the top
at any rate.

Sadly, Cockle, that is so true.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - MokkaMan
I only caught a bit of the programme, but I thought JC (who is good entertainment value) ended up trivialising the debate a bit. I do not believe refering to buses as transport for old people that stop and start every 20 yards really develops any practical argument. It would have worked in Top Gear but was out of place in Question Time.

I have lived in London for the last sixteen years and there is no doubt that the roads cannot sustain constant expansion in vehicle numbers (I think there was some report that stated that on average cars go about 2mph in London for any journey). So unquestionabley something has to be done. It is unlikely that Ken will solve the problem in one hit but there will be an evolution of a solution over time. Congestion charging when it starts will certainly develop the debate.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - volvoman
What I'm waiting to see is what the effect on the periphery of the scheme is. Can't help thinking that serious problems are going to arise in these areas, that tough measures will then be needed to deal with them and so the controls will spread. Businesses will pay up (they have to), the businessmen, bankers, lawyers, city whizz kids etc. will pay up (because they can easily afford it) and the less well off who drive into London will suffer.

If it's fair to base the council tax on the notional value of your home, why not base the charge on the size/type of car - small economical cars pay less than big gas guzzlers. Surely that would help the environment too !
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - bazza
I think that there are people who care, but this government is sooooo good at spin and manipulation that any adverse comment or opposing view is carefully "massaged" away. The current climate of obsessive political correctness throughout society actually helps this process. Take Ken L for example. Sure he's radical but I respect him simply because he speaks his mind and he doesn't give a b***er what anyone else thinks. Of course he's far too radical for New Labour, which has successfully distanced themselves from him! Similarly I respect Clarkson, again he speaks his mind and is refreshingly politally incorrect! Note that IMO they both hit on the REAL reason for a possible Iraq conflict, yes, OIL!! Of course it is, that's why we're in there really isn't it?
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - volvoman
Put it this way, I don't think anyone would be hurrying to Iraq if they didn't have such massive oil reserves !

OT I know but we should all dwell on this fact. Our society depends on oil and if (a very big IF) say, the Arab oil producers all got together and decided to stop selling us their oil what would we do ? They don't have to sell it to us do they ? People went mad here when petrol went up but a few pence per litre, what if there was no petrol, what if all our oil fired power stations ceased to function ? What if our industry collapsed ?

Under such extreme circumtances would we be justified in trying to take control of their oil supplies ? If yes, then aren't we being hypocritical when we condemn Bush for fighting a war for oil ?
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Phil I
Do me a favour please HJ and take JC's pic off the sidebar its spoilt my breakfast surfing:-)

Happy Motoring Phil I

No comment on programme - didn't watch.
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Dan J
Here here - it's also attracting work colleagues to the fact I am not currently sharing the workload :)
Clarkson v/s Livingstone + Howard - Phil I
Now thats what I call service!!!!

Thanks a lot HJ

Happy Motoring Phil I
Middle East Oil - eMBe {P}
Apologies for this political post, but HJ did contribute to the oil issue, and so I feel justified in adding my bit.

The war against Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (it is against him, not IRAQ) is to protect both threats: terrorists and oil shortages.

The terrorist threat is serious and real. The oil threat is not direct, but the indirect scenario is as follows:

If Saddam gets the weapons and means of delivery, it then becomes almost impossible to strike against him. (Just look at Pakistan, India, and North Korea as proof - the West dare not attack these countries as they already possess working nuclear bombs).

He then could walk in to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other oil producing countries, without fear. He would then have control over oil supplies and the West would be impotent in acting against him. The only country which might risk taking him on, knowing that it is a question of do or die, would then be Israel - they could launch a nuclear strike evn though they would be srtuck back by Saddam. Israel would attack first on the basis that if they did not, they would be targetted by Saddam sooner or later.

It is to prevent this type of scenario arising that Saddam has to be disarmed and replaced by a benign Government.
Middle East Oil - Tim
Not so just remember the implications of M.A.D.
Middle East Oil - No Do$h
What, the funny comic with the odd looking kid on the front?

Seriously, the problem with Mutually Assured Destruction is that it doesn't pose much of a threat when you are dealing with a fundementalist religion that cherishes martyrdom. With Saddam's ego, he is likely to believe that he would survive any attack from Israel anyway. Ditto Tiny Blur for that matter, otherwise why all the sabre rattling. The chap has been in power so long it's likely that he's lost touch with anything we might recognise as reality.

As usual it will be the little people that take the brunt.

No Dosh - He who dies with the most toys wins.
Middle East Oil - MokkaMan
At the risk of bringing the discussion back to a car oriented slant, there was some traffic coordinator from the USA in the newspapers yesterday, who has apparently accused all owners of 4*4 / SUV's in the States of funding terrorism via their huge petrol consumption. I believe this has reduced some celebs to state that they only use their 4*4/SUV when they have to - school run, family holiday, etc, etc. They are basically green and only drive huge vehicles to protect their family.

So that's okay then...........
Middle East Oil - J Bonington Jagworth
"..funding terrorism via their huge petrol consumption"

Or, equally, funding Texan oil men. OK, it's the same thing...
Middle East Oil - Ben {P}
Im unconvinced no country would strike against another with nuclear weapons. In the gulf war the major admisitration with the americans told saddam they would retaliate with nuclear force if Saddam released any weapons of mass desruction on coalition forces. the kind of weapons they believed him to have been harbouring would of be capable of killing just as many people as a primitive nuclear device.
One should relaise that many of the figures heard on the tv relating to the number of years oil reserve will last, are often calcualted with present market values in mind. these are the oil reserves that are financially viable to access given present price levels. As prices rise, more oil reserves will be viewed as viable targets for investment. There is loads of oil under the poles etc.
the threat to the world economy resulting form a number of mass casualty terrorist attacks is as much a worry as likely fluctuations on oil prices in the short term for me. the tecrit clique that run the Iraq have bancrupted it. Saddam has a history of poor judgement. I hope a way is found that leads him to his own coffin.

iraq's oil - eMBe {P}
Tim: the safety assured by the fear of MAD only works if you are dealing with sane people. Saddam has already demonstrated his willingness to use the scorched earth policy when faced with defeat in Kuwait. Without revealing my sources, I can tell you that it is known that he has already prepared the same fate for Iraq's oil fields if he faces defeat, because that way he can prevent his successors (and the world, for that matter) from getting Iraq's oil and, more importantly for him, he will leave behind a huge environmental disaster - the next best thing to using a WMD (weapon of mass destruction).
iraq's oil - Mark (RLBS)
Enough. Motoring please.
iraq's oil - No Do$h
Enough. Motoring please.

Er, at the risk of your wrath, may I respectfully point at a post entered at 10:13 today?

Ok, ok, I'm going!

No Dosh - He who dies with the most toys wins.
iraq's oil - bazza
***there was some traffic coordinator from the USA in the newspapers yesterday, who has apparently accused all owners of 4*4 / SUV's in the States of funding terrorism via their huge petrol consumption***
I can remember the last big fuel crisis of 1973 which spawned a new era of fuel efficient engines. If that kind of discussion is working its way into US society, it can only be a good thing in the long run IMO. But the whole issue of the world's dependency on oil must be addressed, not just drivers of sports SUVs! A decent oil crisis now and again isn't always a bad thing!



Value my car