It’s almost certain that everyone reading this has heard of ‘manufacturing of consent’, if you haven’t, read on for the perfect example of this in action which has surfaced from Labour’s very own ‘think tank’ the IPPR…..always curious how the IPPR is a ‘think tank’ whilst Migration Watch is a ‘pressure group’ in BBCspeak.
The IPPR has produced a classic of its kind. You can see the cogs spinning hard as the machine churns out the blueprint for a persuasive plan of action that is designed to manipulate the Public into accepting a course of action that a particular pressure group wishes to have implemented by politicians.
In this case the IPPR is manoeuvring to change the way vehicles are taxed.
The IPPR starts from the premise that the Public will be resistant to any changes…to overcome this resistance the ‘plan’ is put into action…approaching the issue indirectly...essentially tricking the Public:
- The first problem is how to get the Public interested and primed to accept behaviour change…to do this you have to create a ‘problem’ that must then be ‘solved’, one that is urgent, compelling and personal….in this case they chose ‘air pollution’…a problem that you can easily make alarmist and exaggerated claims about having serious and detrimental effects upon the Public…especially their children….and all headline grabbing, so guaranteed Media coverage.
- Once you have created a ‘problem’ and alarm about that ‘problem’ you can go on to suggest the solution….the ‘solution’ that is in fact the one you were really wanting to implement regardless of the amount of air pollution ….in this case to tax vehicles in a radically new way….with the rich paying vastly more to travel.
- So now you have a ‘problem’ and a ‘solution’…all you need to do is persuade the politicians to buy in…which is easy as if the Public have bought in they will be demanding action, or rather ‘they’ in the shape of the pressure groups on their ‘behalf’….assuring politicians that there are votes to be won.
- The politicians legislate for the new tax measures. …to er…cut air pollution. Job done.
You wanted to change the taxation and you succeeded, not by raising dry, boring technical issues about vehicle taxation but by a subterfuge….pretending the issue you were looking to solve was air pollution.…and it ‘just so happens’ changing the vehicle tax was a good method to do this.
There are other details that add impact to the plan and either bring more arm twisting pressure to bear or add ‘credibility’ to it.
- You might like to get the endorsement of credible and authoritative organisations…in this case ‘Liberty’.
- Get local authorities on board who will use their resources and even legal powers to engineer the changes.
- Present this as a local issue, spin it so that the problems and the benefits of reform will be felt locally, effecting people’s own families, and not on a national, impersonal level.
- Use health and safety legislation to bypass any barriers to implementation….H&S trumps all these days.
- Avoid referendums….don’t give people time to think and other alternatives to your favoured solution.
- Put a cost onto the ‘problem’ that you have conjured up…possibly a financial cost or health or quality of life….if people can be persuaded that the ‘probelm’ costs them money they are likely to be happier to pay, or be inconvenienced, to change things…encourage the idea that reform is cost neutral….any costs will be mitigated by savings.
- Use euphemisms to add glamour and mystery to your project…or to hide unpleasantness….such as ‘active travel’….what is ‘active travel’? Walking and cycling…but, the plan says…only in the summer. Enjoy that bike ride to work.
- Raise awareness of how the ‘problem’ impacts on quality of life and the safety of families.
Relevant to the BBC?
Firstly the proposal to change vehicle taxation methods bears a similarity to proposals to change the BBC’s licence funding…any changes are complex and involve a ‘subscription’ method….pay by the mile for cars and pay by view for TV.
If it can be done for vehicles, which would in fact be more complicated, it can be done for the BBC…..and just as the present vehicle taxation regime is untenable long term, so is the BBC licence levy.
Secondly the IPPR has produced a scheme that is a classic of its kind…..one that the BBC has already adopted and adapted to present climate change to us and persuade us to accept the claim that there is an apocalyptic problem and that it is man made, to accept the idea that we are going to burn, to accept the need for action, to accept the need to close down CO2 producing industry and other CO2 generating methods such as travel.
The BBC is at the heart of the climate change lobbying industry, without it providing such heavyweight propagandaand authority it would be difficult for the climate lobby to make such headway…it already struggles against mere bloggers and a few ‘maverick’ scientists who stick their heads above the parapet.
Who is the Svenagli that is leading the BBC by the nose down the road to ruin for us all? Roger Harrabin.
Harrabin was at the centre of the plot to cajole, coax and convert the BBC to the Green agenda. His CMEP seminars were designed to bring together all the editors, news heads, programme commissioners, producers, writers and performers and persuade and convince them to make climate change a major part of their programming…either as news and documentaries or inserted into dramas, comedies and children’s programming as almost subliminal messaging for viewers.
Quality of life issues, cost to the planet, danger to your own families and guilt about how our actions are supposedly effecting poor nations are all emotional, logical or shaming strategies deployed to prompt us into accepting the green agenda by the BBC….as well as relentless disaster scenarios and tales of how successfully other nations are adopting renewable energy….to make it seem ‘normal’ and that we are being left behind.
However whilst the planet has certainly warmed there is no proof as to the cause…just speculation and the constant reference to ‘risk’…what if we do nothing and it is real?
The Science is far from ‘settled’.
The costs of doing nothing are unknown in reality but the costs of doing something are known and ever increasing.
You could say Roger Harrabin is the man to blame when your energy bill goes up due to the enormous cost of subsidising renewables or you aren’t allowed to drive your car anymore and you have to take up ‘active travel’ instead.
Roger Harrabin….history will be the judge….and I don’t think it will look back too kindly on him….or the BBC for not living up to its mandate to provide impartial and accurate news and information.
Of course, the simplest way would be to completely review the way fuel is taxed and include Road Fund Duty in the price of petrol/diesel. It becomes self-administering (everyone has to buy fuel) and self-monitoring (those with gas-guzzlers pay, little old lady who uses her Yaris once a week to go to the shops, doesn’t; haulage firms with big order books, pay because they have the income to do so, those ‘between contracts’ don’t and are not forced to the wall by unnecessary overheads; overseas visitors pay too). Psychologically, the increase in the price of fuel would encourage people to use more fuel efficient vehicles too, thus extending – in the long term – the longevity of what is a finite resource. The added bonus is that you can close down most of DVLA too and get shot of a bunch of civil serpents off the tax-payer’s back.
MoT compliance? Simple. Insurance firms are then required to issue a ‘token’ (ie an ‘Insurance Disc’) that has to be displayed in the vehicle to prove that the vehicle is insured (should reduce the number of uninsured drivers – tick that one too!) and the Insurance Disc isn’t issued until proof of a valid MoT is presented. Incentive? It’s in the insurance industry’s own interests to ensure that vehicles are MoT’ed and safe on the road.
Nah! Too sensible and simple………
Not only is your plan to simple, it doesn’t have the intrusive GPS tracker system in every car so big brother can watch you part.
The government and particularly the last Labor government have been looking at a way to introduce a pay by the mile system using GPS tracking and the EU have issued a diktat stating all new cars sold after October 2015 have to have “a ‘black box’ device fitted to track drivers’ movements” so once these new cars become the majority of cars used in 15 to 20 years I suspect we will see the above mentioned pay by the mile system pushed hard by the government of the day.
Government Looks At Pay-By-Mile system; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm
EU Black Box In All New Cars; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625244/EU-bug-car-UK-tracker-chips-Ministers-admit-powerless-stop-Big-Brother-technology.html
And the telescreens become mandatory, when, pray tell?
Pardon?
Would you mined expanding your question and adding more substance to it therefore I maybe able to answer you more completely.
Sorry – clearly too tangential. Oblique reference to “1984” where all rooms had a Telescreen installed so that Big Brother could actually watch you…..
But the hierarchy could (pretend to) turn them off.
Ahh, its been so long since I last read it, no wonder it went right over my head.
Thanks for clearing that up
Which would probably require even more civil servants to run the show, the very opposite of what is needed. The simple option mentioned above by Ophelia is so obviously the correct one so the most unlikely to be implemented by our useless government
I like it. That’s why – sadly – I’m almost sure the government (or what passes for it these day’s) won’t.
Excellent catch all template here Alan for any agitprop campaign by the left and liberals.
The bullet points work well for forcing smart boxes into cars as the EU like-or getting at the motorist…but it works for all other lefty “massaging of the dull white trash who see no problems”.
I`d include positive feedback from the “academics” the “charities/campaigning groups” and the liberal elite…all of who will be needing their EU funding in some quadrille of blowback done in front of each others mirrors.
Global Warming/Climate Change is a scam and until proper facts are presented that are verified by sceptics then is just conjecture, a smoke screen to cover up money making. It is certainly not science. The conference that the BBC took part in, or arranged, (28 Gate) where the science was so called ‘settled’ was a sham. If the hard evidence was there it would have been published. It has not, because they know it was something else. A method of getting an income for scammers that have no other legitimate way of earning a living. Theft.
The problem is that the propaganda has been so relentless because they, the scammers, have the airways to themselves. No dissenting voices are allowed and in any case is very hard to prove that nothing is changing. It is just weather that is changing. It always has it always will. So they win.
They certainly win when the sentence, “However whilst the planet has certainly warmed there is no proof as to the cause…” is quoted.
Moving on…
I live in a small town in the East Midlands surrounded by wonderful rolling countryside. Except all the fields are yellow as far as the eye can see in every direction with Rape seed in flower. The air is thick with the sickly sweet smell of its pollen. It causes countless attacks of hay fever, asthma, sore throats and blocked sinuses. In short, it is damaging health.
This would be all well and good if it were for food but it is not. Yes, some of it goes for oil, for cooking, for animal feed and so on. However this vast acreage that surrounds us, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of acres is not for food, it is for biofuel that is used commercially. It is exported mainly for biodiesel. It is simply a high yield cash crop for farmers promoted by and subsidised by the EU.
This really is the rape of our countryside to support the daft green lobby of the EU. There is still plenty of oil and gas under the ground and the sea but what are we doing… growing it… and then importing food to eat, and to keep it fresh it is flown in by plane. How criminally inefficient is that.
Perhaps the left wing element of our readership who pop on here now and again to defend the indefensible causes that the majority of us are forced to pay for would lobby the government on this disgraceful rape of our countryside. Have a demonstration if you want and bring your friends from the UAF. You can come as you are, you don’t have to wash or anything.
Hi,
I haven’t read the vehicle tax proposals but I don’t think its comparable to the licence fee. If the idea is that you pay for what you use, as with water meters, that is paying for your road use, to compensate for the pollution you cause, and the wear & tear on roads, traffic police etc then its not the same. The more people watch TV is not incuring a financial cost in maintenance. In fact, it may be beneficial for people to watch educational programmes.
But the comparison would seem to miss the point of a publicly funded broadcaster, in that it provides programmes universally that might not get made in a tv free market ie classical music & children’s programmes, or provides programmes universally which would otherwise only be available to those who could pay a premium ie major national sports events etc
Why do we need motoring taxes at all?