|
Raising fuel duty will encourage a move towards smaller, more economical cars, which are also less polluting. Given that we can't all buy electric cars tomorrow, reducing the number of large cars on our roads is to be welcomed.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 18/11/2022 at 11:30
|
|
It won't necessarily happen, although it is in the OBR report, he has the option of whether to introduce it or not in the next budget, I guess it will depend on which way the political winds are blowing and the price of crude then.
|
|
|
Raising fuel duty will encourage a move towards smaller, more economical cars, which are also less polluting. Given that we can't all buy electric cars tomorrow, reducing the number of large cars on our roads is to be welcomed.
I doubt someone buying a 2,5Tonnes £100k Range Rover will notice the small change.
|
|
|
Raising fuel duty will encourage a move towards smaller, more economical cars, which are also less polluting. Given that we can't all buy electric cars tomorrow, reducing the number of large cars on our roads is to be welcomed.
That can't happen much, unless people can find a smaller car to buy, or happen to have one put away somewhere ready to use. Most drivers will be stuck with the car they have.
|
|
The price of fuel certainly influences decisions made by most folk make when the car is due for replacement. That those few with £100k to spend on a big motor may be fairly unconcerned does not make the policy pointless.
That higher prices do not immediately change emissions is unsurprising. With ~30m cars on the road it will take ~12-15 years for the entire fleet to be replaced (save for a few kept past ~15 years old).
If very simplistically all replacements were one size down from existing - luxobarge down to large, large down to mid size, mid-size down to supermini and mini down to city car - the reduction in energy (EV or ICE) consumption would be ~ 15-30%.
Add in improvements to technology (both performance and driving experience) and the benefit could be 30%++.
|
|
The default budget position has been for years that fuel duty goes up by inflation. However, the last few years the Chancellor has chosen to cancel that just before budget. The temporary 5p discount also ends in March 2023 which was introduced in last budget.
Therefore OBR are just following the position of plugging in the default numbers into forecasts which is 5p plus 11% or so uplift plus VAT giving 12p in total.
However, depending on circumstances the CX has the option of cancelling some or all of that in March.
|
|
There is very little in the world more British than getting angry about something that hasn't happened and may well never happen.
|
There is very little in the world more British than getting angry about something that hasn't happened and may well never happen.
Not everything in such statements leads to changes being made 'at 6 o'clock tonight'. Given how legal people check such documents, why wouldn't the forthcoming rise not go ahead if it is planned for (presumably) the 31st March 2023?
The only reason being is that enough public outcry that it has to be 'cancelled' to save face, though likely all that would happen is that Hunt says 'we'll have to get the money from somewhere else to balance the books' and then (say) do yet another Brownian money grab via some sneaky way you don't notice, like they did with tax boundaries.
I suspect they hoped no-one in the media (well, most of the MSM are now paid-for shills for Lib/Lab/Con and their handlers up the chain and stayed quiet) would notice, but once Liam Halligan (one of the few decent journos still left at the Telegraph) did, he brought it to our attention, but via GB News. Only then when word had sufficiently got round via independent news media did the MSM bother (today) to report on it.
|
|
As pd says above, it was only ever 'planned' in so much as it's the default position if the Chancellor does nothing. It's sensationalist nonsense to treat it was some hidden scheme all along. Nothing at all has changed since the budget yesterday, it's just that a few reasonable people have stepped in and pointed out it's a complete misrepresentation of what the OBR said.
|
|
|
There is very little in the world more British than getting angry about something that hasn't happened and may well never happen.
Not everything in such statements leads to changes being made 'at 6 o'clock tonight'. Given how legal people check such documents, why wouldn't the forthcoming rise not go ahead if it is planned for (presumably) the 31st March 2023?
The only reason being is that enough public outcry that it has to be 'cancelled' to save face, though likely all that would happen is that Hunt says 'we'll have to get the money from somewhere else to balance the books' and then (say) do yet another Brownian money grab via some sneaky way you don't notice, like they did with tax boundaries.
I suspect they hoped no-one in the media (well, most of the MSM are now paid-for shills for Lib/Lab/Con and their handlers up the chain and stayed quiet) would notice, but once Liam Halligan (one of the few decent journos still left at the Telegraph) did, he brought it to our attention, but via GB News. Only then when word had sufficiently got round via independent news media did the MSM bother (today) to report on it.
They work for all the main political parties? How does that work when they have a conflict of interest? Do they go with the highest bidder?
Is the Telegraph not MSM as well - so Liam Halligan must be doing what his 'handlers tell him?
|
Most people just get used to whatever things cost, they might moan about it for a while, but in the end they pay up and shut up.
Except of course those who really can’t afford it, which is a bit sad for them or indeed anyone who can empathise/sympathise with them.
To be honest, if fuel was £5.00 a litre I’d still buy it, I’d feel a bit robbed, but I’d carry on buying it. I might, for a while, be a bit circumspect about unnecessary journeys, but I suppose I’d eventually just carry on as before.
Ultimately we all grumble about things, but mostly we just suck it up.
|
Most people just get used to whatever things cost, they might moan about it for a while, but in the end they pay up and shut up. Except of course those who really can’t afford it, which is a bit sad for them or indeed anyone who can empathise/sympathise with them. To be honest, if fuel was £5.00 a litre I’d still buy it, I’d feel a bit robbed, but I’d carry on buying it. I might, for a while, be a bit circumspect about unnecessary journeys, but I suppose I’d eventually just carry on as before. Ultimately we all grumble about things, but mostly we just suck it up.
Not everyone has the money that you do to be able to afford to fill up at £5 a litre though.
|
Most people just get used to whatever things cost, they might moan about it for a while, but in the end they pay up and shut up. Except of course those who really can’t afford it, which is a bit sad for them or indeed anyone who can empathise/sympathise with them. To be honest, if fuel was £5.00 a litre I’d still buy it, I’d feel a bit robbed, but I’d carry on buying it. I might, for a while, be a bit circumspect about unnecessary journeys, but I suppose I’d eventually just carry on as before. Ultimately we all grumble about things, but mostly we just suck it up.
Not everyone has the money that you do to be able to afford to fill up at £5 a litre though.
I think there would be riots if fuel went up that much. And the richer normaly complain the most.
As said the poorer just get on with life as a moan doesnt get them anywhere anyway.
|
|
Fuel at £5 per litre may prompt even the fairly well heeled to be a little concerned.
It would make me think carefully about where I drove, what car replaced the one I currently have, my choice of work/home location, planning shopping trips etc.
But I would still fill the car up, albeit less frequently. Fuel would still be cheap - the capacity to move ~2 tons of car and contents 10-15 miles for ~25 minutes work at the minimum wage. A bargain!!
|
|
I suspect they hoped no-one in the media (well, most of the MSM are now paid-for shills for Lib/Lab/Con and their handlers up the chain and stayed quiet) would notice, but once Liam Halligan (one of the few decent journos still left at the Telegraph) did, he brought it to our attention, but via GB News. Only then when word had sufficiently got round via independent news media did the MSM bother (today) to report on it.
They work for all the main political parties? How does that work when they have a conflict of interest? Do they go with the highest bidder?
Is the Telegraph not MSM as well - so Liam Halligan must be doing what his 'handlers tell him?
I suspect that they (the DT editorial team) have been 'using' certain selected journos to be their 'managed opposition', just enough to ward off subscribers from leaving, knowing (like with the Tories and Labour up until this year) that the alternatives (like the Times) are even less real conservative and more globalist establishment.
I suspect some of the journos know they're being played and push their own 'rules of engagement' to and sometimes slightly beyond the limits, and why some like Liam are popping up on GB News to push their uncensored views far more than they could at the DT.
As regards the legacy newspapers (generally) themselves, don't forget that all of them took huge amounts of 'advertising' revenue from the government (same abroad) during the pandemic (and still do), and that was, IMHO, likely hand-in-hand for 'favours' as regards what reports go out, what can / cannot be said (or to the degree) and the level of censorship of reader comments sections (a big problem these days).
In my view, the same has happened with the papers taking loads of $$$ / £££ from the likes of the Gates Foundation and others, in return for reporting favourable to their agendas. From reading the comments below such articles (which often rapidly get those comments removed or whole comments sections yanked), most readers are not happy with them.
I think that the DT, despite the (IMHO) propaganda money coming in, are finally reaslising that the tide has turned with subscribers (and more generally with public opinion on environmental, freedoms and woke issues) and they are changing their tune on some issues. I won't return as a subscriber because they change of tune is not sincere. It's why I follow certain journos only because of their actions elsewhere, rather than one place only.
Once that 'other funding' dries up (as it likely will soon), then you'll likely see a change back to more historical norms of reporting and opinion pieces in these newspapers. I even noticed similar things (coming from the other direction) in, for example, The Guardian, which also took similar large sums from Billy-boy.
|
|
"... the papers taking loads of $$$ / £££ from the likes of the Gates Foundation and others, in return for reporting favourable to their agendas."
- Please show what evidence there is that the Gates Foundation and other similar organisations are funding newspapers. You could also explain why the Gates Foundation and others are in any way sinister.
|
|
|
|
|
The price of fuel certainly influences decisions made by most folk make when the car is due for replacement. That those few with £100k to spend on a big motor may be fairly unconcerned does not make the policy pointless.
That higher prices do not immediately change emissions is unsurprising. With ~30m cars on the road it will take ~12-15 years for the entire fleet to be replaced (save for a few kept past ~15 years old).
If very simplistically all replacements were one size down from existing - luxobarge down to large, large down to mid size, mid-size down to supermini and mini down to city car - the reduction in energy (EV or ICE) consumption would be ~ 15-30%.
Add in improvements to technology (both performance and driving experience) and the benefit could be 30%++.
I’m not clear if this calculation includes the city car to no car transition, which is implicit in it, but not stated.
If not, It’s inclusion would presumably reduce the fuel consumption and congestion still further.
Might be harder to get a seat on the buses though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
