news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3554030.stm
These people are our elected representatives, folks. Let's all take a moment to be proud about that.
I perceive the following consequences of such a move:
1) Protests/blockades etc, just like those which took place 4 years ago.
2) Unable really to afford the increase, but having little choice but to continue using their cars, people will start economising on things like proper maintenance, which will probably, if anything, lead to increased emissions when their engines develop faults, which they can't afford to have fixed properly.
3) Higher distribution costs ==> higher prices ==> inflation.
Ho hum.
Feel free to correct me on any of the above...
|
"It will argue that despite the current high oil price, petrol is still relatively cheap in real terms. "
An easy thing to say when you don't have to define what your "real terms" are.
Problem 2 is a serious likelihood, IMHO.
|
|
|
It will just price the poorest off the roads. The poorest people make the fewest journeys. Petrol has stayed roughly the same price in terms of the rpi for quite some time. This 'cheaper in relative terms' is a nonsense. It has been hiked in price significantly since 1997. It will be the ultimate irony that a labour government that believes in redestribution of wealth is removing all but the most well off from the roads. A few of my friends aren't earning that much and they have had to give up their cars and the freedom that goes with it as the running costs are too high. It's all very well those in Westminster saying people shouldn't be driving but out here in Stoke where the average wage is much lower than elsewhere you are effectively removing a substantial portion of the population from the roads. Some of those that are the poorest earners work shifts. If they don't have a car then they don't have a job.
Add in 4) increased unemployment, fewer people spending money, recession.
You can't run public transport everywhere 24/7 to cover the lost car journeys. Apart from anything else it would make more pollution as you'd be running empty buses. Never mind all the energy needed to build more buses to replace the cars that already exist!
teabelly
|
Unbelievable!!
Couple of papers are running stories about uninsured drivers costing the rest of us £30 in additional insurance a year.
If fuel goes up, folk who haven't got money to burn will economise by forgoing insurance.
I'd be more impressed if they raised fuel prices to include blanket 3rd party insurance for all cars - that way everyone would be insured and we'd only have to pay the difference between 3PFT and FC.
Would solve the uninsured driver problem overnight and should reduce premiums as well.
Probably too simplistic for the learned folk who govern.
|
|
Problem with raising fuel prices to give everyone third party insurance is the bad drivers would get a massive reduction in premium while the rest of us would pay more. A lot more than £30 a year, I would reckon.
|
Not so sure, according to the Guardian. www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4158...l
Assuming their figures are reasonably accurate, 5% of drivers are uninsured and the average annual insurance premium is £350.
This equates to 1 in 20 drivers - so if the other 19 pay £20 pounds each that more than covers the difference.
Not a lot of money over a year to resolve the issue, I'd also expect the current drive to identify uninsured drivers to continue.
|
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings on this. I hate paying so much every time I fill up, but as a way of collecting tax at least it also has to be paid by all the criminals, drug dealers, tax evaders, moonlighters, and others who enjoy the benefits of taxation but don't contribute any income tax.
Makes me a bit happier to think like this at the pumps, and although increased income tax would be less obvious it would cost me more I think.
Anyone know of any other good ways of taxing the lowlife mentioned above?
|
"White man speak with forked tongue."
Of course this hike in the price of fuel is for our own good. We were told constantly that the increase in tax on fuel was was to reduce its use. However, when the protests took place we were then told that hospitals, education and other public services had to be paid for. Where will the money come from if the fuel tax is reduced, bleated Bliar? Now they are suggesting that fuel is too cheap and the price must be increased so that we stop using so much. Really?
Perhaps politicians should pay for their own cars and the cost of using them. No perks such as free parking. When they have to pay such things out of their own pockets maybe they won't be so quick to raise taxes.
|
|
A nice idea Robbie, but I suspect they will just themselves a whacking great salary rise to cover it.
|
|
|
|
I find it comforting that for every problem there is a solution: higher taxes; new taxes; as yet unthought of taxes.
How about enabling vehicles to travel at their most economical speed (around 50mph?) certainly 30mph MINIMUM in towns by proper traffic engineering rather than having them sitting in jams and at traffic lights with their engines idling and the carbon emmission at that point being infinity grams per mile.
|
If this comittee were really serious about their environmental concerns their statement would read:
"As elected representatives we have decided to set an example to the country by returning our driving licences and from now on using only the public transport system that we have been urging everyone else to use instead of their own vehicles."
Not likely to happen, is it? As for making car use unaffordable to the poor, Labour politicians no better than anyone that it doesn't matter. The poor don't vote.
|
All this tosh talked by our government just adds to my loss of interest in all UK politics. There was a time when I really engaged in the political process here.
Not any more - Just like my builders, I now read the sports page of the newspaper first and ignore anything politcal.
Next stage: buy house in France, next stage: live there 100% of the time.
Do you know why this government has relaxed its plans for compulsory education of at least one foreign language? It's so they reduce the chance of us escaping!
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if emigrating across the Channel would really solve all such problems - sadly not though I fear. They'll probably tax you more in France than here and tie you up with more red tape too. IMO the real answer to global warming is to tax all the hot air and methane which emanates from the Palace of Westminster (and the like).
|
Wouldn't it be nice if emigrating across the Channel would really solve all such problems - sadly not though I fear. They'll probably tax you more in France than here and tie you up with more red tape too.
Don't be misled. As long as you're not working and receive less than 70000 euros a year (£46k p.a.)France is the better bet for tax and the general cost of living a retired type would have: housing, insurance, food, fuel (car & house if somewhere warm).
As for politics they all speak too quickly on the TV for me to follow exactly what they're saying - a bit like our deputy PM really.
|
|
|
|
if we take their stated aim to "... curb ... emissions linked to global warming ... " at face value; then just take a look at these two charts.
www.xist.org/charts/linkc.php?xml=en_oilcons&xsl=e...s
www.xist.org/charts/pop_total2.php
it is obvious that the efforts by our rulers are totally misguided - in the second chart, look at the population growth for the usa, china, india, and compare that with the uk.
the uk population rank dropped from 9th in 1950 to 20th in 2000 and is forecast to be 30th in 2050.
whereas china, india and usa keep growing to retain their top-three ranks. now go back to chart 1, remember that the usa is the world's largest per-capita user of oil. so the population growth in usa, china and india is where the problem lies, and britain is a mere drop in the ocean.
british oil consumption reduced to zero, zilch, nothing, will have absolutely insignificant impact on global warming.
|
" have mixed feelings on this. I hate paying so much every time I fill up, but as a way of collecting tax at least it also has to be paid by all the criminals, drug dealers, tax evaders, moonlighters, and others who enjoy the benefits of taxation but don't contribute any income tax."
Try telling that to the people in the old folks bungalows who go out every few days to find their locking caps smashed on the floor, and have had their tanks drained again.
|
|
If fuel goes up much more it's going to become a target for organised crime, not just opportunists.
|
Those people who drive uninsured cars are the same people who don't register them, nor pay for fuel. They commit drive offs.
It's about time these morally corupt MPs had they exorbitant travel allowances removed. Let them see how we mere mortals have to live.
|
It's about time these morally corupt MPs had they exorbitant travel allowances removed. Let them see how we mere mortals have to live.
Not just the allowances. Surely it should be a requirement that a driving licence be a pre-requisite for any appointment in which the holder sets road & fuel taxes.
Sadly, that would mean the loss of our glorious Chancellor.
|
I seem to recall that at one time a certain Barbara Castle was Minister for Transport but could not drive.
On the other hand, being a Minister is about the only situation where you need no formal qualification or practical experience in the industry for which you hold the portfolio.
|
And more recently, we saw Estelle Morris as Minister for Education. Sadly, she has no A-levels.
being a Minister is about the only situation where you need no formal qualification or practical experience in the industry for which you hold the portfolio.
Perhaps we should experiment with appointing Ministers who know what they are talking about. You never know......
|
Hmmmm, let's see..... .... ministers who know what they're talking about?........
Nope, can't think of any!
|
|
So, if the Transport Minister is responsible for Transport but knows nothing about transport, etc etc, and the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for everything, I wonder what the inevitable conclusion is re TB?
|
|
TB - a really nasty, virulent affliction which affects primarily poor people.
|
"TB - a really nasty, virulent affliction which affects primarily poor people."
Miaow!
(Very impressed)
(Paulb {P} for President!)
|
Fuel tax is a fair tax, at least as far as private motorists are concerned. If you drive an economical car, then it doesn't affect you much. If you drive a gas-guzzler it does!
But fuel tax should be very low on sustainably produced fuels like biodiesel. This would encourage fuel retailers to adopt blends of diesel containing increasing percentages of biodiesel.
Cheers, SS
|
(Paulb {P} for President!)
I'm flattered, and it's tempting, but Mrs B would never allow it! ;-)
|
TB - a really nasty, virulent affliction which affects primarily poor people.
LOL!
|
TB - a really nasty, virulent affliction which affects primarily poor people.
volvoman,
may i suggest an amendment:
tb - a really nasty, virulent, affliction primarily self-infected by poor peolple but now affecting all classes.
|
>> tb - a really nasty, virulent, affliction primarily self-infected by poorpeolple but now affecting all classes.
Quite - welcome to TB's new Britain :(
|
|
The real trouble is that this isn't a way to reduce emissions to any great degree anyway. A few people might make a few fewer leisure journeys and the odd one might consider car-share but in the main, most drivers will be making the same journeys and just contributing more to Mr Brown's coffers.
How about some proper attempts to reduce emissions for a change? Proper incentives to change to better fuels and electric vehicles. Spending on public transport rather than cutting back - quite how they can turn down the reopening of the Buxton > Matlock line and the Metrolink expansion while very shortly afterwards putting up fuel duty to 'reduce emissions' I don't know... Also, how about encouraging home delivery by retailers. Not just your Tescos and Asdas, but how about the likes of B&Q, Dixons etc or even a combined system so you can go shopping, order loads of stuff and get it delivered without needing to carry it all home at once. Often people take the car simply because they know they are buying too much to carry on the train or bus...
|
|
|
If our government is so concerned about pollution why not ration EVERYBODY to say 10 gallons of fuel a week.
That way the poor are not victimised, and the wealthy won't get very far in their two jags (sorry Mr Prescott) err I mean uneconomical gas guzzlers.....
What do people think about this??
|
Fuel rationing isn't really the solution either TBH. For starters it discriminates against people such as salesmen and those who drive for a living but it would also fire up a real black-market of people claiming their ration each week and selling it on...
Also, the figure would be difficult to judge. Most weeks I only use 2 or 3 gallons but others I use 10 or more depending if I have any long journeys to do. However, I can imagine someone who commutes a long distance can easily use that much.
Personally, I don't think any sort of limit, tax or similar attempt to force people to cut back will work. What they should be looking at is ways to give people an alternative or to cut back without sacrificing their existing lifestyle. For example, a lot of my journeys are to work and back - 3 miles or so. If Stockport had proper cycle lanes where you aren't always in mortal danger then I'd cycle more often. If basic electric vehicles where available reasonably cheaply then I'd have one and leave the car at home during the day. If we had buses that were half reliable and had more journey options without having to risk a hit-and-miss change then I'd go by bus. However, as it stands there is no competition to the car so I will carry on using it.
|
|
|
There's thread re rationing at the moment:
"Alternatives to Road Tolls"
ps In general, the idea was a little unpopular!
|
|
|
|
Nice to know we're not the only place in the world talking about this...
www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15460
--
Terry
|
|
|
