|
Post by EspadaIII on Sept 4, 2024 7:39:09 GMT
News from VW. Apparently they are in financial trouble with their EVs because they are building several cars in China and the EU has slapped a 21% tariff on cars built in China. This relates to Cupra and Seat EVs including the new Tavascan.
Somehow I can't get upset for them. They knew that China is problematic for all sorts of reasons. If Stellantis can build EVs in Europe so can VAG.
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on Sept 4, 2024 7:51:55 GMT
Yes, apparently VW are even entertaining the notion that they will have to close a couple of assembly plants on German soil, for the first time ever? The unions are grumbling already.
Ironic that the Powers That Be want us proles to switch to EVs, yet they are slapping tariffs on the affordable EVs made in China! Got to protect our own manufacturing eh?
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,352
|
Post by WDB on Sept 4, 2024 7:59:03 GMT
Protectionism invariably defeats itself in the end. Remember those ‘voluntary quotas’ for Japanese cars in the 1980s?
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on Sept 4, 2024 8:07:57 GMT
There was a US academic on the radio here accusing China of subsidising their EV industry. So what? In my eyes if the Chinese have the land, manpower, materials and budget surpluses available to invest then good luck to them. Wouldn’t we do the same if the boot was on the other foot?!
BYD are unstoppable allegedly.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,352
|
Post by WDB on Sept 4, 2024 8:16:17 GMT
Yes, has done since 2009, reasoning that EVs were an opportunity to position Chinese makers as leaders in a new market rather than playing constant catch-up with Western brands in an old and saturated one. I’m inclined to applaud their foresight and learn from it.
There’s another debate, of course, centred on how a government that doesn’t have to worry about elections can make long-term plans and investments, rather than give craven reassurances to dying industries.
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on Sept 4, 2024 8:21:49 GMT
But things get done - or are more likely to - without the government changing every 4/5 years. Over here the conservative government are talking about investing in new roads. It’ll take 3-4 years of planning, by which time the Opposition win the general election and stop everything. Ad infinitum…
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Sept 4, 2024 8:33:22 GMT
How many thousands of miles of roads and amazing bridges have the Chinese built and how many airports with multiple runways...
In the meantime we can't build one measly fast rail link to the north. Pathetic.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,352
|
Post by WDB on Sept 4, 2024 8:35:27 GMT
Exactly — although I’d still rather live in sclerotic, decision-paralysed Britain (or New Zealand) than in China. But democracies do need a way of agreeing and executing long-term strategies, preferably with something less than a world war as the stimulus.
I’d see this as a role for a reformed upper house of parliament, perhaps with members serving a twelve-year term with a third elected every four years. That would remove the pressure to please the crowd — especially if individuals were limited to one term — and to act in the genuine interests of the nation, not the narrow ones of the party. Meanwhile, we can’t even build a new railway line. And Esp got to that point before me.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Sept 4, 2024 8:53:36 GMT
National Infrastructure and Energy National Health Education
These are things which should be strategised and agreed on a cross party basis for the long term. Somehow. I have long thought that.
The current situation is one of the downsides of Democracy, but as with the downsides of EU membership, the benefits heavily outweigh them. Imperfection is an unavoidable characteristic of all forms of governance, but I do believe we have a form of the least worst so far discovered.
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Sept 4, 2024 9:02:52 GMT
I am normally in favour of the original House of Lords where no-one had the need to curry favour with anyone. But the 12 year single term option has significant merit. I would also want a proportion to be technical Lords appointed with professional knowledge to deal with infrastructure items.
Certainly the planning laws are massively out of date and there needs to be a streamlined process for items of national importance. I hate NIMBYs with a vengance - it is utterly selfish. Every country has its weird planning and building regulations but none seem to be as stifling as ours or as susceptible to undue public influence.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,732
Member is Online
|
Post by bpg on Sept 4, 2024 10:55:18 GMT
Not forgetting privatisation. If you are going to privatise keep control within the country not simply selling to the highest bidder.
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Sept 4, 2024 12:13:07 GMT
This country seems to be insistent on 'doing it our way' without looking at best practice examples from other countries; countries with whom we have a lot in common.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,721
|
Post by Rob on Sept 4, 2024 19:02:28 GMT
So Volvo is rowing back on going EV only too. They say 10% might be mild hybrid by 2030 but who knows.
The trouble for them is if the buyers still want hybrid ICE and they don't sell it... someone else will.
The worrying thing is we need to go to zero emissions to avoid the catastrophe we're heading to with the climate. Says the household with two ICE cars (still). The Seicento passed it's MOT today so we'll keep for a bit longer because it does low mileage and scrapping it would be wasteful.
And when I say low mileage I mean very low. Some will probably say it would be better to use a taxi but for convenience and cost that probably is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on Sept 5, 2024 2:22:22 GMT
If the climate catastrophe was imminent, Rob, don’t you think that they’d let us buy cheap Chinese EVs without tariffs?! (“Us” meaning US, Canadian, and EU consumers so far.)
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,732
Member is Online
|
Post by bpg on Sept 5, 2024 3:52:52 GMT
Once the carbon credits market has matured and demand is outstripping supply it will be mandatory.
|
|