I hear that the Chinese owners of Lotus are considering moving production to Chinaland, making 1300 directly unemployed and hundreds more from their supply chain.
We've done it again, sold our silver to Johnny Foreigner, and now we're paying the price.
The Lotus workforce has world-class skills in building strong lightweight cars. Will these skills and innovative practices be lost from the UK, skills that make us the best producer of racing cars in the world? Skills that the aerospace industry values. Will aerospace be next?
Why do we subsidise the disabled ,and the less able, to buy fat four-seater 4 x 4 foreign cars on Motability to the tune of £30,000, pay for all their servicing and running costs (except fuel), and repeat it every 3 years? Who else has a new car bought for them every 3 years?
Whatever happened to the Invalid Carriage of the '50s and '60s? These were single seaters, easily recognisable, and fit for purpose - that purpose being the mobility of those that deserved help.
Now we seem to have foreign made 4 x 4 monster cars given away to just about anyone who complains well enough, to be driven by their extended family and parked in supermarket disabled bays with impunity. Surely we, the taxpayers, shouldn't be funding misuse of a benefit on this scale. I heard a quote the other day (unsubstantiated) that 4 out of every 5 cars sold in Northern Ireland is supplied on Motability. Shocking if even half true.
So what does a disabled person need from Motability; or rather what should the taxpayer be expected to fund? I suggest the following:-
1. Transport to and from work.
2. Transport to and from the shops.
3. Transport to and from the doctor, the hospital, and to help with a reasonable social life.
I don't believe we should fund taking their able bodied kids to school, their extended family on long motorway trips, nor allowing their families to use their Motability car for any other purpose than the mobility of the person awarded the car.
What we need is a modern Invalid Carriage. A two seater lightweight electric car with a 100 mile range. A car that is simple and cheap to service; a car with a 10 year battery life that will last well beyond the 3 year 'life' of a current Motability car. And who better to design and build this car in Britain than the Lotus workforce in a purpose built assembly plant on an old airfield in Norfolk.
As I see it these modern invalid carriages will :-
1. all be the same colour and model, saving inventory and storage costs.
2. have 4 wheels and be capable of 50mph.
3. have a range of 100 miles.
4. seat 2.
The advantage to the exchequer will be a lower initial cost, a rot-free and long lasting chassis and bodywork, reduced servicing costs, a contribution towards fossil fuel consumption, and the tax contribution of 1300+ who would otherwise be sucking benefits out of the exchequer. There may also be a bonus in the number of Motability claims dropping as those with better means would avoid the obviously identifiable Motability car on the drive.
To the general population it will be a statement that, whilst we support helping those less able, we won't be buying them cars we couldn't afford ourselves, nor will we be funding jobs abroad rather than in Blighty.
A side bonus will be the easy identification of those abusing the disabled parking spaces.
What do you think, DIYNers?
We've done it again, sold our silver to Johnny Foreigner, and now we're paying the price.
The Lotus workforce has world-class skills in building strong lightweight cars. Will these skills and innovative practices be lost from the UK, skills that make us the best producer of racing cars in the world? Skills that the aerospace industry values. Will aerospace be next?
Why do we subsidise the disabled ,and the less able, to buy fat four-seater 4 x 4 foreign cars on Motability to the tune of £30,000, pay for all their servicing and running costs (except fuel), and repeat it every 3 years? Who else has a new car bought for them every 3 years?
Whatever happened to the Invalid Carriage of the '50s and '60s? These were single seaters, easily recognisable, and fit for purpose - that purpose being the mobility of those that deserved help.
Now we seem to have foreign made 4 x 4 monster cars given away to just about anyone who complains well enough, to be driven by their extended family and parked in supermarket disabled bays with impunity. Surely we, the taxpayers, shouldn't be funding misuse of a benefit on this scale. I heard a quote the other day (unsubstantiated) that 4 out of every 5 cars sold in Northern Ireland is supplied on Motability. Shocking if even half true.
So what does a disabled person need from Motability; or rather what should the taxpayer be expected to fund? I suggest the following:-
1. Transport to and from work.
2. Transport to and from the shops.
3. Transport to and from the doctor, the hospital, and to help with a reasonable social life.
I don't believe we should fund taking their able bodied kids to school, their extended family on long motorway trips, nor allowing their families to use their Motability car for any other purpose than the mobility of the person awarded the car.
What we need is a modern Invalid Carriage. A two seater lightweight electric car with a 100 mile range. A car that is simple and cheap to service; a car with a 10 year battery life that will last well beyond the 3 year 'life' of a current Motability car. And who better to design and build this car in Britain than the Lotus workforce in a purpose built assembly plant on an old airfield in Norfolk.
As I see it these modern invalid carriages will :-
1. all be the same colour and model, saving inventory and storage costs.
2. have 4 wheels and be capable of 50mph.
3. have a range of 100 miles.
4. seat 2.
The advantage to the exchequer will be a lower initial cost, a rot-free and long lasting chassis and bodywork, reduced servicing costs, a contribution towards fossil fuel consumption, and the tax contribution of 1300+ who would otherwise be sucking benefits out of the exchequer. There may also be a bonus in the number of Motability claims dropping as those with better means would avoid the obviously identifiable Motability car on the drive.
To the general population it will be a statement that, whilst we support helping those less able, we won't be buying them cars we couldn't afford ourselves, nor will we be funding jobs abroad rather than in Blighty.
A side bonus will be the easy identification of those abusing the disabled parking spaces.
What do you think, DIYNers?
