Jack Yan on Vox

Obama more “exciting” than McCain—and why this matters

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:44:41 +1200

This is no surprise given the promotions that Sen. Obama has been getting in the media: ‘Obama elicits more excitement than McCain’, according to USA Today.
   I want to be the voice of reason but 21 years in communications tell me that this is important. If your brand, personal or organizational, elicits excitement among its constituents, then you have a greater chance of mobilizing those people when you need them.
   Even when it comes to politics, to get messages across to voters, one has to resort to the tried and trusted techniques of branding and marketing.
   There are few in the present generations who will, as many bloggers do, investigate someone’s voting record or dig deeply into their histories. It would be nice to say that presidents are not elected based on how much excitement they can generate. Or that we should place greater emphasis on other qualities like honour and sincerity.
   While some might point to exceptions, such as the Tory victory in the UK of 1992, I beg to differ. That campaign was hard fought by the Conservatives and depended on party unity—which was sorely lacking in 1997 when Tony Blair was elected. The National victory in New Zealand of 1990 was a result of the cry for change and the belief that Labour was leaderless.
   And the cry for change is such a powerful message in politics, because politicians understand our nature: even the vaguest change is better than the strongest, best defined policies if a party has been in power for too long.
   Labour in the UK in 1997, National in New Zealand in 1990, Labour in New Zealand in 1999, Clinton in 1992—all these are examples of that message. And that, too, “excites”.
   Sen. McCain should not pursue an excitement route himself, but he should capitalize on mistakes that the Obama campaign is making with greater regularity. The New Yorker gaffe—where Sen. Obama felt the need to comment rather than appear presidential and above satire—was an opportunity missed. Meanwhile, I wonder if people appreciate the maverick, go-it-alone style of John McCain, which plays well in the Senate, but could be symptomatic of future Cabinet divisiveness under his administration.
   A winner is by no means clear, and a week remains a long time in politics. Months, as Sen. Clinton will attest as she went from dead cert to second-best, are an eternity.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

500th model on Autocade

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:16:24 +1200

I reached the 500th model milestone today on Autocade. The 500th entry was a very unlikely one, but it goes to show how varied the models are, and how they are not necessarily cars I even like!

Ford Fairlane (NL). 1996–9 (prod. unknown). 4-door sedan. F/R, 3984 cm³ (6 cyl. OHC), 4942 cm³ (V8 OHV). Final Fairlane on this platform, and last one to have a code unique to itself and LTD—its EA169 successor would be grouped under the AU colloquialism. Ghia trim reintroduced for 1998. Usual luxuries on a fairly rugged platform, beloved of hire car companies Down Under. Roomy and comfortable, though detail ﬁnish behind that of European and Japanese luxury cars.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Why it’s still the American century

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:56:48 +1200

In the spirit of July 4, I thought it would be interesting to explore the idea of the United States retaining its influence in the 21st century.
   What many see is dire. Beyond the anti-war types’ opposition to the War on Terror, there are corrupt institutions, political and corporate, impeding progress on so many things, from innovations to ways society can function more progressively. The same institutions have led to a financial crisis. Economic management has led to a weak dollar, to the point where some reject it for the euro.
   So with the rise of India, and less so of Red China, where is the United States in all of this? How can I be so bold as to say it will remain the American century?
   Because of Americans. Individuals. Those who have access to their own speaking platforms, highlighting what they see is wrong with their country, and having a nation that protects their free speech as sacrosanct.
   The country that has championed individuality may well be saved, karmically, by individuals themselves.
   No anti-American I know stands firmly in his or her country and disses individual Americans. They spit their venom at the government or their corporations. The Iranian blogs that I visited, to see where their root cause of anti-Americanism lay, targeted abuse through globalization. Maybe they have a point, because Americans themselves are not too happy about outsourcing.
   And because many Americans have the skills to put their words across, in what remains the internet’s lingua franca—English—and because they can identify the sources of their problems, they can address them.
   What we, in the rest of the world should be doing, is engaging this dialogue. Putting forth our point of view.
   It’s frightfully easy for people to either have a case of nation envy or tall poppies, dragging down the richest country on earth and pointing out its problems for a short-term feeling of superiority. This is childish at best. While I do not deny the US has its faults—and Americans themselves would be the first to admit that—we should give each other perspective.
   I talk about our healthcare system: not the best in the world, but I would rather be sick here than in the US, because of universal coverage. And if we chat to our friends in the US about this, it will give them ideas on how they might accomplish it—or avoid it, if they see faults in our model. The idea of the internet is a beautiful one, even if spammers and pornographers threaten its sanctity: the ability to have a small world where we can have one-on-one discourses, and better ourselves.
   That free speech has to be defended at all costs, because even if the United States restricts the movement of people and the movement of capital, it needs to at least allow the movement of ideas.
   It is something to be guarded jealously and taught in its schools.
   It is, meanwhile, denied to many in Red China, unable to grow through dialogue. Instead its economy grows from the influx of capital, going in on growth figures that have been verified by none except a communist dictatorship, or from the misappropriation of intellectual property. Red China understands the latter cannot continue and has put up some restrictions—but until the opportunities for growth are open to all, then it will not have the support of its citizenry in the way the United States does. Red China can only become a great nation if all of China rethinks the republic, perhaps a commonwealth, but certainly one based around the principles of Confucius and Sun Yat-sen. It can happen as suddenly as the collapse of the Soviet Union, or it may take many more years than we imagine.
   Till then, the nation that may yet benefit is one that has great dialogue with the United States, and embraces it, seeing it as a blending of cultures and an opportunity for growth.
   That nation is India and while its opportunities have not flowed through to everyone, and it, too, has its internal problems, it is poised to rise through the freedom of people, capital and ideas. The Indian century may follow the American century, but it may take a familiar form. Not far from now, if current trends continue, the Indian middle class will grow. It will form the basis of a strong national infrastructure. And the Indian century, too, will be based around freedom and liberty.
   However, in the immediate term, provided the United States can unite itself around its real values, those principles that, in reality, are not uniquely American after all, I see no reason for the American century not to continue.
   It is fortunate to have a holiday like the Fourth of July, a chance to remind everyone that freedom and justice are not buzzwords. That these principles really do mean something to the rest of the world—and that they need to be honoured. And that the power rests with everyone, because everyone has a voice.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

It was hip to be square

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:20:11 +1200

A few new entries on Autocade reminded me of just how fashionable this Paolo Martin–Pininfarina style was 30-plus years ago.

Fiat 130. 1969–77 (prod. 15,093 saloon, 4,294 coupé). 2-door coupé, 4-door saloon. F/R, 2866, 3235 cm³ (V6 OHV). Biggest modern Fiat, in a market sector the marque has not contested since. Saloon launched 1969 with four-wheel independent suspension and all-round disc brakes, modern for its time. V6 designed by ex-Ferrari Aurelio Lampredi. Engine enlarged 1971, the same year Pininfarina-designed and built Coupé announced. Rust problems, thanks to Russian steel used on doors. Three Maremma estate prototypes built, one used by Fiat boss Gianni Agnelli; one Opera saloon and one Familiare estate also built. Never directly replaced: the smaller 132 became Fiat’s ﬂagship after demise of the 130 berline; Coupé built till 1977. Effectively replaced by Lancia Gamma in Fiat’s premium-brand range.
Manufacturing locations: Grugliasco, Italy; Rivalta, Italy.

Rolls-Royce Camargue. 1975–86 (prod. 534). 2-door coupé. F/R, 6750 cm³ (V8 OHV). Called Project Delta internally. Top-of-the-line Rolls-Royce, with Pininfarina styling by Paolo Martin and Silver Shadow platform. Launch delayed due to ﬁnancial difﬁculties at Rolls-Royce, sharing a look with Fiat 130 Coupé from the same styling house that had launched some years before. Ostentatious and most expensive production car at the time, considered stylish during its run. First post-war Rolls-Royce to be designed out-of-house. Designed to metric dimensions with a slight seven-degree slant to the grille. First car to offer split-level climate control.
Manufacturing location: Crewe, Cheshire, England.

Peugeot 604. 1975–85 (prod. 153,252 sold). 4-door saloon. F/R, 2304, 2498 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHV), 2664, 2849 cm³ petrol (V6 OHC). Squared-off ﬂagship for Peugeot, with 1970s Pininfarina styling similar to that of Fiat 130 Coupé and Rolls-Royce Camargue (the 604 is usually credited to Paolo Martin, but is more likely the work of Aldo Brovarone). Launched in the wake of 1973 fuel crisis, so not very successful. Favoured for ofﬁcial usage in France, but not popular in export markets with quality concerns. First mass-produced turbodiesel car with 2304 cm³ engine. Forgettable Talbot Tagora spun off from 604 parts in 1980. Stretched landaulet model by Henri Chapron among the carrossier’s last cars.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Goodbye, Harvey Korman

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:50:09 +1200

Another great actor passes on: Harvey Korman from The Carol Burnett Show, Blazing Saddles and History of the World Part One. (He regarded these as his best credits.) ‘Korman reportedly suffered complications related to the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm he experienced four months ago,’ according to IMDB News. Two clips follow—I’m afraid I haven’t found any of ‘Count de Money! Count de Money!’

Dentist Sketch - The Carol Burnett Show

Pledge to Hedley Lamarr

Mr Korman gave a wonderful series of interviews from earlier this year, which are quite enjoyable.

Harvey Korman - Archive Interview Part 1 of 3

Harvey Korman - Archive Interview Part 2 of 3

Harvey Korman - Archive Interview Part 3 of 3

You will be missed, Harvey.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Dan Chan, a great Chinese New Zealander

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 24 May 2008 13:29:44 +1200

Dan Chan funeral order of service

I learned quite a few things about Dan Chan at his funeral last Wednesday in the eulogy delivered by historian Dr James Ng.
   Dan was born in China in 1907 but was educated in Australia, where his father worked, from 13—both at a state school in NSW and Scotch College in Melbourne. This was, as James told us, unusual in its day as most Chinese fathers of Dan’s era would have sent their children back to the old country.
   This foreign education meant that Dan was bilingual and a very well versed and philosophical writer. He had returned to China and Hong Kong to set up a business there but the Japanese invasion meant that he and his family had to flee to the antipodes.
   His education meant that he could stay in New Zealand because his work was needed in editing a magazine for expatriates here and Dan also helped members of the diaspora get money back to the old country (one of his proud accomplishments being the mastering of a code to aid the transfers).
   However, his business in New Zealand, as I knew it, was in the restaurant trade—back in those postwar days it was rare to see anyone other than Anglo New Zealanders in white-collar professions.
   This did bring his family some security and Dan was a great benefactor in the old country, even having a high school built.
   His contributions to New Zealand society were awarded with a Queen’s Service Medal and he was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, which I understand equates roughly to an OBE.
   His driving licence was apparently still valid at the time of his passing. He was so alert and capable that instead of having an annual renewal—which is necessary for people at his age—he was given his for two years at age 99. He gave up driving voluntarily.
   As I said in my earlier tribute, he had a better memory for faces and people at age 100 than I do today.
   When you hear this history you come to realize that men like Dan, whom I knew more as being active in the Chinese New Zealand community, were actually the trailblazers who bridged the gulf between the émigrés and mainstream Kiwis.
   He was respected in legal circles, a recent conference only being funded because someone had made a large donation in his honour.
   The Otago University library holds Dan’s papers, a collection of writings between 1939 and 1999, often dealing with philosophy, not just Chinese issues.
   At his funeral, even former restaurateur and City Missioner Father Des Britten attended, along with engineer, blogger and historian Steven Young.
   Without his contribution and his readiness to work with institutions to help Chinese people in New Zealand, we would have been much the poorer. Dan was a great advocate.
   Although Dan had made it into the MSM when his ONZM was bestowed on him with the 2007 New Year honours, I found it a great surprise that the media missed his passing and a well attended funeral at Old St Paul’s.
   It may be a slight exaggeration to say that we would still be expected to run Chinese takeaways, laundromats and groceries—when you think about it, those days were within the lifetimes of many of us reading this post today. But certainly the idea of the well versed, professional Chinese New Zealander might not have been as well cemented, because the cultural gulf would not have been bridged as successfully.
   Those of us who enjoy professional positions today owe a debt of gratitude to men like Dan Chan. God bless you.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Tony Blair on the reasons for the Iraq war

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:45:34 +1200

Bit of a history lesson here. On March 18, 2003, 12.35 p.m., from Hansard.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,

That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.

At the outset, I say that it is right that the House debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right, but that others struggle for in vain. Again, I say that I do not disrespect the views in opposition to mine. This is a tough choice indeed, but it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down now and turn back, or to hold firm to the course that we have set. I believe passionately that we must hold firm to that course. The question most often posed is not "Why does it matter?" but "Why does it matter so much?" Here we are, the Government, with their most serious test, their majority at risk, the first Cabinet resignation over an issue of policy, the main parties internally divided,

18 Mar 2003 : Column 761

people who agree on everything else—[Hon. Members: "The main parties?"] Ah, yes, of course. The Liberal Democrats—unified, as ever, in opportunism and error. [Interruption.]
   The country and the Parliament reflect each other. This is a debate that, as time has gone on, has become less bitter but no less grave. So why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people who have been brutalised by Saddam for so long, important though those issues are. It will determine the way in which Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century, the development of the United Nations, the relationship between Europe and the United States, the relations within the European Union and the way in which the United States engages with the rest of the world. So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.
   First, let us recap the history of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had used the weapons against Iran and against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear, after the Gulf war, that Iraq's WMD ambitions were far more extensive than had hitherto been thought. So the issue was identified by the United Nations at that time as one for urgent remedy. UNSCOM, the weapons inspection team, was set up. It was expected to complete its task, following the declaration, at the end of April 1991. The declaration, when it came, was false: a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. And so the 12-year game began.
   The inspectors probed. Finally, in March 1992, Iraq admitted that it had previously undeclared weapons of mass destruction, but it said that it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed. In October 1994, Iraq stopped co-operating with the weapons inspectors altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1996, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1996, however, Iraq was forced to admit that declaration, too, was false.
   In August, it provided yet another full and final declaration. Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive biological weapons programme and, for the first time, said that Iraq had weaponised the programme—something that Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening while the inspectors were in Iraq.
   Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in the 1990s. Iraq was then forced to release documents that showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1996, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles

18 Mar 2003 : Column 762

that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. Then a further "full and final declaration" was made. That, too, turned out to be false.
   In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites. In September 1997, lo and behold, yet another "full and final declaration" was made—also false. Meanwhile, the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, the existence of which had always been denied by the Iraqis.
   In October 1997, the United States and the United Kingdom threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. Finally, under threat of action in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did continue, for a few months. In August, co-operation was suspended.
   In December, the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for. Then, in December 1998, the US and the UK undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facility as we could.
   In 1999, a new inspection team, UNMOVIC, was set up. Saddam refused to allow those inspectors even to enter Iraq. So there they stayed, in limbo, until, after resolution 1441 last November, they were allowed to return.
   That is the history—and what is the claim of Saddam today? Why, exactly the same as before: that he has no weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance, finally resulting in the inspectors' leaving in 1998—seven years in which he hid his programme and built it up, even when the inspectors were there in Iraq—when they had left, he voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
   When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, and possibly more than 10 times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; and an entire Scud missile programme. We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years—contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence—Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
   Resolution 1441 is very clear. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has for years been in material breach of 17 UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate, the first step being a full and final declaration of all weapons of mass destruction to be given on 8 December last year.
   I will not go through all the events since then, as the House is familiar with them, but this much is accepted by all members of the UN Security Council: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself, incidentally, is a material breach. Iraq has taken some steps in co-operation, but no one disputes that it is not

18 Mar 2003 : Column 763

fully co-operating. Iraq continues to deny that it has any weapons of mass destruction, although no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes it.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, and details all the unanswered questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It lists 29 different areas in which the inspectors have been unable to obtain information. On VX, for example, it says:

"Documentation available to UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX".

On mustard gas, it says:

"Mustard constituted an important part . . . of Iraq's CW arsenal . . . 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for . . . additional uncertainty"

with respect to over 6,500 aerial bombs,

"corresponding to approximately 1,000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard."

On biological weapons, the inspectors' report states:

"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres . . . Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."

On that basis, I simply say to the House that, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the Security Council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach. What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes, there are minor concessions, but there has been no fundamental change of heart or mind.
   However, after 7 March, the inspectors said that there was at least some co-operation, and the world rightly hesitated over war. Let me now describe to the House what then took place.
   We therefore approached a second resolution in this way. As I said, we could have asked for the second resolution then and there, because it was justified. Instead, we laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441, or be in material breach. That is not an unreasonable proposition, given the history, but still countries hesitated. They asked, "How do we judge what is full co-operation?"
   So we then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests, based on the document that they published on 7 March. Those tests included allowing interviews with 30 scientists to be held outside Iraq, and releasing details of the production of the anthrax, or at least of the documentation showing what had happened to it. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to co-operate with them.
   So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full co-operation; and that, if he did so, the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme that would extend over a period of time to make sure that disarmament happened. However, if Saddam failed to meet those tests to judge compliance, action would follow.
   So there were clear benchmarks, plus a clear ultimatum. Again, I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable proposition.

18 Mar 2003 : Column 764

   Last Monday, we were getting very close with it. We very nearly had the majority agreement. If I might, I should particularly like to thank the President of Chile for the constructive way in which he approached this issue.
   Yes, there were debates about the length of the ultimatum, but the basic construct was gathering support. Then, on Monday night, France said that it would veto a second resolution, whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate, even at that point.
   Last Friday, France said that it could not accept any resolution with an ultimatum in it. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. However, the fact is that France remains utterly opposed to anything that lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

I realize not everyone likes to read Hansard, and I certainly didn’t when I was at law school. Perhaps this excerpt from later on might be more useful and it is the crux of the international disagreement. The Prime Minister outlined his position on resolution 1441:

It is correct that resolution 1441 did not say that there would be another resolution authorising the use of force, but the implication of resolution 1441—it was stated in terms—was that if Iraq continued in material breach, defined as not co-operating fully, immediately and unconditionally, serious consequences should follow. All we are asking for in the second resolution is the clear ultimatum that if Saddam continues to fail to co-operate, force should be used. The French position is that France will vote no, whatever the circumstances. Those are not my words, but those of the French President. I find it sad that at this point in time he cannot support us in the position we have set out, which is the only sure way to disarm Saddam. And what, indeed, would any tyrannical regime possessing weapons of mass destruction think when viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam over these 12 years? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions has only been matched by our feebleness in implementing them. That is why this indulgence has to stop—because it is dangerous: dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us; dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, and even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace against us; and dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity, when, in fact, if pushed to the limit, we will act. But when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. It is true that Iraq is not the only country with weapons of mass destruction, but I say this to the House: back away from this confrontation now, and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects.

   I do believe Mr Blair was right in his last sentence, because Saddam Hussein would have armed Iraq more and more.
   We know history has shown us that there gaffes along the way with a loss of many lives, Coalition and Iraqi, but from the point of view of international law, the above outlines pretty well why the war began: a breach of resolution 1441. This was also why Congress voted yes to attacking Iraq, not the reasons now given by certain politicians.
   As I wrote in an earlier post on the subject, countries have taken two positions on the resolution: the US–UK one, which says 1441 must be enforced if the UN Security Council is to save any face; and the French one, which required a second resolution authorizing force (but which it said it would veto). Countries like New Zealand took the latter position.
   I make no judgement on which is right and which is wrong here.
   Certain American presidential candidates need to level with the American people on why they are changing their minds about the Iraq war. The reasons I have heard from the likes of Sen. Clinton are so far fabrications at worst, and the result of a poor memory at best.
   Sen. Clinton voted to enforce a UN Security Council resolution, just as her husband did in Kosovo, without a second resolution.
   She needs to tell the American people why her position on enforcing international law has now changed and I see nothing wrong if she merely fronted up with her rationale.
   As I said in the comments to that earlier post, I do not mind the anti-war brigade or the anti-war rhetoric of the US Democratic Party as long as their arguments are founded in truth. There are strong arguments against going into Iraq backed by many nations, but it is very odd that they are not used; instead, Bush- and troop-bashing seem to be the norm. That makes me question their motives and it makes me rather sad for those who believe their arguments: what they do is divide a country and hurt us all.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

David Horowitz on the reasons for the Iraq War

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:38:19 +1200

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441.
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded.
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

David Horowitz - Party of Defeat

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure?
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The little Rovers that could

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:54:09 +1200

Here’s an Autocade series for the Brits. Remember these? Well, maybe all but the last one. I haven’t put in the data for the MG ZR yet though.

Triumph Acclaim. 1981–4 (prod. 133,625). 4-door saloon. F/F, 1335 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC). Anglicized version of Honda Ballade, made on the BL production lines at Cowley. Notable as one of the ﬁrst Japanese designs to be built within the EEC, to bypass the gentlemen’s agreement where Japan limited itself to an 11 per cent share of the European market. Cramped in the rear compared with rivals. Limited-edition Avon Acclaims with more equipment and turbocharger; CD trim model later added as luxury version. Last Triumph car.

Rover 213/Rover 216. 1984–90 (prod. 418,367). 4-door saloon. F/F, 1342, 1598 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC). Nicknamed ‘SD3’ or ‘Ronda’, successor to Triumph Acclaim followed the same formula: begin with a Honda Ballade. This time, Rover input was greater, evident on the cars themselves, which looked more distinctive. Reliable, advanced for its time thanks to 1·3 unit, slightly less up with the play with 1·6 derived from old Austin Maxi unit but still economical. Intended to be a niche player but had very healthy sales in comparison with other Austin Rover products of the time. Facelift in 1987 including revisions that Honda itself adopted for its Civic and Ballade.

Rover 214/Rover 216/Rover 218/Rover 220 (R8). 1989–98 (prod. 708,003). 3- and 5-door saloon, 2-door convertible, 2-door coupé. F/F, 1396 , 1590 cm³ petrol, 1769, 1905 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC), 1588, 1590, 1994 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Twin to Honda Concerto with even greater Austin Rover input than prior Rover 200 series, and probably the company’s most competitive range against ageing Ford Escort and even newer rivals such as Fiat Tipo. Some diesels sold with Honda badges but Rover bodywork. Cabriolet from 1992. Three-door launched 1992 with more powerful versions competing as a hot hatch; two-door coupé, codenamed Tomcat, well regarded as a performance derivative, from 1993. Two facelifts, including 1994 one grafting on formal Rover grille. Saloons deleted with launch of R3, but coupé and convertible carried on to 1998 without 200 name.

Rover 200/Rover 214/Rover 216/Rover 220SD (R3). 1995–9 (prod. 470,449). 3- and 5-door saloon. F/F, 1396, 1589, 1796 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 1994 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC). Originally designed as a replacement for Metro, but BMW and Rover nudged it upmarket where it was a premium product and rather expensive for its size. Smaller than former Rover 200 due to its Metro-replacing origins and cheaply developed at £200 million. Attractive David Saddington-styled car with ideas above its station, promoted by Sting on TV, aimed at the 20-somethings. As an Escort or Golf competitor, far too cramped. Most cars soon badged 200, regardless of engine size. Limited-edition BRM in 1998. Successor was eventually brought down to earth and sold in the Fiesta class.

Rover 25. 1999–2004 (prod. 217,620 all 25 incl. Mk II). 3- and 5-door saloon. F/F, 1120 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC), 1120, 1396, 1588, 1795 cm³ petrol (4 cyl. DOHC), 1994 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC). BMW-inﬂuenced facelift for 1995 Rover 200, designed to keep the car current till replacement ready in the 21st century—sadly, that never came. Repositioned lower in the market-place with price adjusted, making 25 seem better value. Introduction of Streetwise “soft-roader”: a 25 with cladding pretending to be an off-roader, but which had the same FWD transmission as others. Laughed at then, but now Volkswagen, Ford, Citroën, Peugeot and others offer similar cars.

Rover 25. 2004–5 (prod. 217,620 all 25 from 1999). 3- and 5-door saloon. F/F, 1120 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC), 1120, 1396, 1588, 1795 cm³ petrol (4 cyl. DOHC), 1994 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC). Facelift and new interior—and last hurrah—for British-made 25, codenamed Jewel. Packaging dated but car still fairly handsome and reasonably good value. Streetwise faux off-roader continued. Lasted till April 2005 when MG Rover went into administration, and tooling now owned by Red Chinese state.

MG 3 SW. 2007 to date (prod. unknown). 5-door sedan. F/F, 1396, 1795 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Subcompact crossover developed from Rover Streetwise. MG 3 SW (for Streetwise, not Station Wagon) a front-wheel-drive model with Rover 200 platform from 1995, made in Nanjing, China from 2007 after a two-year hiatus caused by MG Rover’s collapse. New to buyers in Red China, where most are sold.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Forty-two years of the Toyota Corolla

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:58:47 +1200

Warning: this may be the most boring Autocade-related post you will ever read on Vox. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Toyota Corolla. I am not responsible for narcolepsy.
I wrote these ones out of interest, tracking the rise and fall of one of Japan’s greatest exports. I say ‘fall’ despite the fact Toyota has sold 30 million of this nameplate, as it does seem that in an age of market segmentation, it is branching the Corolla line into other nameplates such as the Auris, Blade and Matrix models. So Toyota will still sell huge numbers of these cars-as-domestic-appliances, and it will even instil desirability into them through marketing, and it will likely remain the world’s number-one automaker. But the age of the Corolla may be in decline, with fewer body styles and engine options, as you go down the list—following the same pattern that we can observe with any car line. We are probably 75 per cent through the lifetime of the Corolla. (Note to our US readers: the years quoted are not American model years.)

Toyota Corolla (E10). 1966–70 (prod. 1,170,000 approx.). 2- and 4-door sedan, 2-door coupé, 3-door wagon. F/R, 1077, 1166 cm³ (4 cyl. OHV). The car that kicked it off. Toyota spotted room for a small car as the Japanese middle class grew. Very conventional, drum brakes initially, front discs later. Perhaps established the idea for the Corolla line that basic motoring sells—it need not be the latest technology—but how that appealed to a global market. Aimed at export, toward a ‘general user’. Some creature comforts such as cigarette lighter, reclining seats, two-speed wipers. Four-door and wagon added May 1967. Coupé, from April 1968, sold as Sprinter in some markets—Sprinter line had not split from Corolla line at this point. Larger engine from 1970.

Toyota Corolla (E20). 1970–8 (prod. 3,210,000 approx.). 2- and 4-door sedan, 2-door coupé, 3- and 5-door van and wagon. F/R, 1166, 1407, 1588 cm³ (4 cyl. OHV), 1588 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Launched May 1970, Coke-bottled shape follow-up to original Corolla, proving a bigger hit. Bigger all round, with sporty looking coupé and attractive (for the time) sedan. Conventional engineering but fairly good equipment levels. Addition of ﬁve-door station wagon for ﬁrst time. Sprinter line split from Corolla with this series: cars were called Toyota Corolla for dealers bearing that name, and Toyota Sprinter for Toyota Auto dealers in Japan. Five-speed transmission for 1971. Corolla Levin (and Sprinter Trueno) from March 1972. Daihatsu Charmant spun off from Corolla E20 platform in November 1974, after this model was mostly superseded by Corolla 30. Vans and wagons continued in Japan to 1978 alongside Corolla 30 counterparts.

Toyota Corolla/Corolla 30 (E30, E50). 1974–81 (prod. 4,420,000 approx.). 2- and 4-door sedan, 2-door hardtop coupé, 3-door liftback coupé, 3- and 5-door wagon. F/R, 1166, 1290, 1588 cm³ (4 cyl. OHV), 1588 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Japanese econobox and the world’s top selling car from 1974 to 1977—the ﬁrst generation of Corolla to win this acclaim. Not the most rust-proof and not particularly safe when compared with its contemporaries, but inoffensive though dull. Less roomy than Volkswagen Golf; cruder than contemporary Nissans, but proof that conventional engineering was what the customer wanted in the 1970s. Many variations on the theme: two sedans, two coupés, two wagons. Toyota Sprinter a more powerful version; related to Daihatsu Charmant. Longer life than most Corollas, probably due to 1970s’ recession. Japanese and American models had raised grille, lacking from many other markets. More formal grille for 1977. Production in Japan stopped in 1979; Australia produced the model at Port Melbourne till 1981, with later models featuring a 1290 cm³ four.

Toyota Corolla (E70). 1979–87 (prod. 3,500,000 approx. in Japan). 2- and 4-door sedan, 3-door van, 5-door station wagon, 2-door coupé, 3-door fastback coupé, 3-door hatchback coupé. F/R, 1290, 1495, 1770 cm³ (4 cyl. OHV), 1490, 1587 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC), 1587 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Boxy Toyota for the 1980s looks modern but hides pretty much the same as before: front-engined, rear-wheel drive. Available in a variety of models and tidily styled, but a demonstration of the car as a domestic appliance in most cases. Behind the times once archrival Nissan released its front-drive Sunny for 1981. Van and station wagon built into E80 era with slanted grille; facelifted rear-drive sedans even built in Australia into 1987.

Toyota Corolla (E80). 1983–7 (prod. 3,300,000 approx.). 4-door sedan, 5-door liftback sedan, 3- and 5-door hatchback sedan, 3- and 5-door van and station wagon, 2- and 3-door coupé. F/F, F/R, F/A, 1295, 1587 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC), 1587 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 1839 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC). Toyota may have been late compared with Nissan, Ford, Mazda and Honda in joining the front-wheel-drive bandwagon, but when the E80 Corolla was launched, it blew a lot of the competition away. Highly competent range dynamically and models even had character; relative to the competition, probably the best Corolla ever. Comprehensive range but station wagon and vans carried over from E70 and Levin (AE86) coupé and liftback still on old rear-wheel-drive platform. Sixteen-valve engines for AE86s, developing 92 kW; AE86s developed a legendary status in Japan, considered a classic to this day. Pop-up headlamps for some coupés. Styling completely contemporary with exception of van and wagon, which had an E80-style nose grafted on. Handsome liftback, named Corolla Seca in Australia, where E80 production commenced 1985. Kammback three- and ﬁve-door models part of Corolla range in most countries though considered separately in Japan, US and Canada as Corolla FX, Corolla Compact in Europe. New Zealand FXes had regular Corolla nose; other markets tended to have Japanese one. First Toyota Corolla to top New Zealand sales’ charts, thanks to marketing blitz with That’s Incredible’s John Davison.

Toyota Corolla (E90). 1987–91 (prod. 4,500,000 approx.). 4-door sedan, 5-door liftback sedan, 2- and 3-door coupé, 5-door wagon, 5-door 4WD wagon, 3- and 5-door hatchback sedan. F/F, F/A, 1295 cm³ petrol, 1839 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. SOHC), 1498, 1587 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Bigger, plusher second-generation front-wheel-drive Corolla built on the last’s success, though seemingly less inspiring. Aim was to produce a classless car, and in Japan, it succeeded; in Europe, with other compacts growing, the Corolla never really transcended its position. Same wheelbase, but 2 cm wider. More sophisticated with four-wheel-drive models; Corolla Cielo (Seca in Australia) a contemporary-looking ﬁve-door liftback. Rear-wheel-drive models phased out as Toyota introduced a proper E90 station wagon, though commercial models retained leaf springs at rear. Four-wheel-drive wagon replaced Tercel Carib in most markets, different body to standard wagon. Station wagon shared with Sprinter line. Kammbacks still separate line in Japan, called Corolla FX.

Toyota Corolla (E100). 1991–9 (prod. unknown). 4-door sedan, 5-door liftback sedan, 4-door hardtop, 3- and 5-door hatchback sedan, 5-door wagon, 5-door high-roof van, 2-door coupé. F/F, F/A, 1331, 1497, 1498, 1587, 1762 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 1296 cm³ petrol, 1974 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. SOHC). Dr Akihiko Saito, in charge of the Corolla programme, wanted to create the most reﬁned Corolla possible, with Lexus-style comfort. To some degree, the team succeeded, but the car’s price went up in Japan during a recession. Roomy, but heavy, and less competitive alongside other small cars, including Koreans. Sales were initially slow. Longer wheelbase. Short-tail hatchbacks still Corolla FX in Japan. Four-door hardtop coupé from 1992 called Corolla Ceres. Last Corolla built in Australia.

Toyota Corolla (E110). 1995–2000 (prod. unknown). 3-door hatchback sedan, 4-door sedan, 5-door liftback sedan, 5-door wagon, 2-door coupé, 5-door minivan. F/F, F/A, 1331, 1498, 1587, 1794 cm³ petrol (4 cyl. DOHC), 1974, 2184 cm³ diesel (4 cyl.). Economic recession forced Toyota to use carryover platform from E100 and split Corolla into Asian–North American and Australasian–European–South American editions. More formal styling was apparent for the former; the latter had distinctive grilles. Wheelbase remained unchanged, and doors carried over as well. Kammback ﬁve-door deleted as ﬁve-door models merged into one body style. Sprinter Carib-style shell used for European station wagon (E100 carried over in Japan). Corolla more outclassed in this generation, especially with cost-cutting—though Takayasu Honda, the chief engineer on the project, tried to do so without losing quality. Mini-MPV called Corolla Spacio (Corolla Verso in Europe) introduced. European trim levels sounded more emotive, with Linea Terra and Linea Rossa introduced in this generation. Built on every continent at one point, a true world car. Japanese mid-term facelift April 1997; European facelift to four-headlamp grille 1998.

Toyota Corolla/Toyota Huaguan/Toyota Limo (E120). 2000–8 (prod. unknown). 3-, 4- and 5-door sedan, 5-door wagon, 5-door minivan. F/F, 1364 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. SOHC), 1398, 1598, 1796 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 1995 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. DOHC). Corolla grows to its biggest size up to that point but limited by Japanese taxation requirements (setting the maximum width to 1,700 mm before it goes into a higher tax bracket). Shortened Toyota Vista platform, 2,600 mm wheelbase. Torsion beam axle at rear, replacing independent rear suspension. Sedans sold as Corolla Altis in some Asian markets. Wagons named Corolla Fielder, with hatchbacks taking Corolla Runx and Allex names (the latter replacing Sprinter). Corolla Spacio denoted a minivan model, sold as Corolla Spacio in Europe. Toyota Matrix, a different small van or tall hatchback, sold in US, renamed Corolla Matrix in 2005. Platform shared with Pontiac Vibe (or Toyota Voltz). Competent small car, hatchbacks in fact quite stylish, though interior design dull. Mid-life facelift 2004 in Japan. Japanese production ended 2006; some other countries 2008.

Toyota Corolla (E140). 2006 to date (prod. unknown). 4-door sedan, 5-door wagon, 5-door minivan. F/F, F/A, 1497, 1797 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Corolla grew to a size where the 1,700 mm width was too narrow for export, so Toyota broke up the ranges into related cars: sub-1,700 mm for domestic, over 1,700 mm for export. E140 sedan known as Corolla Axio in Japan. Wagon (Corolla Fielder) sold Japan and New Zealand only. Wheelbase unchanged from E120. Corolla Rumion a boxy minivan related to Scion xB and Daihatsu Materia.

Toyota Corolla (E150). 2006 to date (prod. unknown). 4-door sedan. F/F, 1497, 1797, 2362 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Continuing car-as-domestic-appliance approach with bland styling, if reasonable reﬁnement. Hatchback for Australia and New Zealand really a rebadged Toyota Auris. Interiors better than E120. Different to 1,700 mm-wide model sold in Japan as Toyota divides Corolla into domestic and export models. Sedan badged Corolla Altis in many Asian markets. Wagon part of E140 range, rather than wider E150. Five-door for US market sold as Toyota Matrix.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend