or c) use alternative form of transport (public, biking, walking)
sorry, forgot about that one :)
I want to be as useful as possible
Ian
|
|
|
Clogging up internet forums moaning (your word) about it is a bit pointless IMO.
Quite right. HJ should start a 'Have your moan' telephone line at three quid a minute...
|
|
It's a socialist thing. We'll take all your money one way or another and decide what to spend it on for you.
|
It's a socialist thing. We'll take all your money one way or another and decide what to spend it on for you.
Shouldn't that read "waste it on?"
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel at >£1 per litre is significant, and I would have thought a fair topic for discussion on a motoring forum. And I, for one, think that public spending is far too high and could drop a lot without damaging the public services which matter. I accept that this is straying away from motoring, so will say no more.....
|
It is a proper and pertinent topic to discuss here (more important than car-mats :-0 )
So no insults please otherwise as DD says the knife will be wielded but the discussion kept open.
|
Of course we're being conned - by the BBC.
Petrol is a very competitively-priced product. Once the "meeja" start hand-wringing about oil prices [a tiny part of the cost of a litre] then the sellers can all nip out and change the sign without losing custom.
If everyone stopped buying; the price would fall. [As if...]
Everytime petrol goes up, so do the oil major's profits - odd that; you'd think they'd fall....
|
|
|
|
Several things annoy me about the way fuel is taxed. First, the petrol tax is ad valorem, so the chancellor wins every time the world price goes up, whereas wine, spirits etc. are taxed by the bottle/pint etc. Secondly, the VAT is on the unit price plus the fuel tax - manifestly unfair. Fine the put VAT on the unit price, but not raise VAT on the tax element.
|
When the main fuel blockade appeared 5/6 years ago, WE, all suffered because the refineries couldn't get the fuel to the pumps for anyone.
The only way is to follow an email I received where by if we ALL, Boycott ESSO AND BP only for a month, personally I'd add Tesco and SAINSBURY'S TOO, but they're generally cheaper and people won't sacrifice 3p/ for a potentially long term gain.
SO folks I call on you all to BOYCOTT - ESSO AND BP, (the 2 largest outlets) and send emails to all your workmates and friends, for a month, and when Bp and Esso have no sales, they and their shareholders can do the negottiating with the modern day- Dick Turpin- G Brown to get the prices lowered.
By now the French would have encircled the Eiffel tower and arc de triompe and blocked all traffic in and out of Paris
|
An interesting topic, and much more complex than I?ve seen it discussed on here. I?ll try and be careful here, as while I would regard myself as very moderately left wing, I?m aware that by the standards of this forum I am a screaming leftie! :-)
However, I?m a driver who does large mileages, and the fuel price has a significant personal impact on me.
Despite the screaming protests, there are three factors influencing this.
Why a large duty on fuel?
What the money is spent on?
Whether it is wasted?
Why a duty on fuel?
The duty on fuel is largely justified on environmental grounds, both local and global.
Locally, the thinking is that by increasing the cost of fuel, people will be encouraged to consider whether they are making necessary journeys, and whether they could use an alternative. This has a positive impact on local air quality and traffic levels, which no matter what your general views are, must be a positive thing (if seen in isolation)?
Globally, then the argument is about CO2. There is no doubt man made CO2 is causing global warming. Scientific fact*. Even Dubya now accepts this, and those people in the forum who do not are in cloud cuckoo land.
Those who argue that sheep, or decomposing organic matter etc produces far more CO2 than we do are misunderstanding the concept of a closed loop. All those processes are short term and dynamic ? CO2 being released has only very recently been captured, and it?s a part of a natural, stable cycle, and it?s a zero sum game. By burning fossil fuel, we are releasing CO2 that has been locked up for millions of years, disturbing that cycle, and engaging in various positive feedback loops that mean it?s probably too late to stop this whole thing anyway.
There are several things that are not fact tho, and in fact that are open to debate, disagreement and perfectly reasonable conflicting positions. The argument that while China and co. are producing power stations then there?s no point is valid, to a point. Saying that, if we do nothing, then we are in no position to ask them to do so. The argument that far more could be achieved by cutting household emissions by saving energy there is also highly relevant. It would make a huge difference, and education is making a difference.
When it comes down to it, fuel duties are a fairly fair way of taxing CO2 ? produce less, pay less. Production of CO2 is discouraged, with people having a direct incentive to reduce their output by driving less or having a smaller car, and the time lag on the effect is small, with the high turnover of cars in the UK meaning the effects are introduced quite quickly. Yes, the overall effect is small compared to what could be done by attacking domestic energy useage, but the latter would be very difficult to do politically and practically ? the elderly for example often can?t afford to heat their houses already, and couldn?t afford to better insulate etc.
What is the money spent on?
The cash generated is mostly not spent on roads. Absolutely true. It?s mostly spent on management consultants & PFI schemes, schools and hospitals.
The management consultants are a disgrace, used almost entirely to avoid having to carry the can, and are generally incompetent, inexperienced at what they are doing and money grabbing in the extreme. I know people involved in Govt, and there is a strong feeling that Civil Servants should be banned from bringing in MCs for jobs that they are perfectly capable but unwilling to do themselves. It?s a horrific, multi-billion pound waste of money, and I can never understand why there isn?t an outcry. Amongst my friends, it?s mostly because those in that general area would like to get on the gravy train themselves, and I think most others just don?t know.
Regarding schools and hospitals, I have friends who think that the amount spent is a disgrace, they can and do afford private schools and hospitals, and they are alright Jack thanks very much. Many spend a fortune avoiding tax in ways that I think go far past ethical. But. I think the UK is a better place for not having that attitude generally. I like the fact that if I have an accident then I will be picked up quickly and patched up competently by professionals with the correct tools. Much as you can criticise the NHS, and I work with the NHS every day, they do a fantastic job.
In the NHS, yes, a lot of money is wasted, but the majority of the cash goes on payroll. Other than the doctors, the pay situation in the NHS was a disgrace. It?s now much better, and generally better managed. I have a moderate eye condition. Four years ago I was referred, and then never saw an expert as the wait was 3 years and I?d moved first. When I was referred last month the wait was 19 days. That?s generally true throughout the system, things have been improving.
The mistake has been the reliance on management and on measurable targets. People work to targets, and managers are employed just to prove targets have been met. This is a waste, but whole the govt wants to run things centrally then that?s how it?s going to be.
The fact is that hospitals are screaming for cash. PFI initiatives are bleeding trusts dry for private companies benefit. Patients want and expect the latest treatments, and will often take hospitals to court to get them, even when NICE has correctly identified that for the same money hundreds could benefit. Yes, horrible on an individual scale, but necessary. If we take the cash away, what happens?
Is the money wasted? Well yes, clearly a lot is. A lot could be achieved by making civil servants accountable in a way that they are not now, and by removing numerical, tick list targets. That there should be far more spent on public transport to bring the rest of the country up to anything approaching the system in London is a no brainer. I have to drive in London from time to time, and it staggers me why anyone would do so voluntarily.
So what?s my point?
I think that fuel duty is, to a degree, a fair and sensible way of raising general revenue. Yes, there?s an impact on rural communities that can be unfair, but in specific cases I can?t see why measures can?t be put in place to counteract that. While the country as a whole is unwilling or unable to tax the better off (I read somewhere that the real high rate tax is <10% - certainly the experience of some of my rich friends supports that), then the revenue has to come from somewhere. I certainly wouldn?t want to live in a society such as the US, where it is accepted that the poorest 1/3 can just get stuffed because the rest are okay. We?re better than that.
Global warming is a real and present threat, and we need to start addressing it. Fuel tax is not the answer, but if it can encourage more efficient cars (Bluemotion VWs for example) then that must be a good start.
Not a complete argument, but I?m out of time as I have to go out. Apologies to HJ is this is too greeny ? I am a motor enthusiast, and I?m not advocating banning the car, and this is not intended as a greenie rant. It?s just the issues are far more complex than normally presented in arguments on this site.
* Noting in science is ever actually a fact. But, the balance of evidence is now so strong that it is as close to being a fact as it is likely to get.
|
|
Gordon M, when you get back in can you post the short version I gave up half way through!.
|
Still fighting with my computer. Outlook should be taken outside and shot.
Short version:
Global warming is real. Fact. Cars contribute, even if not a lot. Money raised means we have an NHS and schools worth having, although lots stolen by business (PFI) and management consultants creaming off. Overall worth it while the rich continue to avoid tax all together, at least does some good, although not the full answer.
|
|
|
>I know people involved in Govt, and there is a strong feeling that Civil Servants should be >banned from bringing in MCs for jobs that they are perfectly capable but unwilling to do >themselves.
An interesting comment and certainly not one I can relate to in all my years in the CS. Most Civil Servants I have come across are thoroughly hacked off when highly paid Management Consultants are brought in to do their jobs which they are perfectly capable of doing at a fraction of the price. Huge contracts (often multi millions) are handed out to private companies when internal employees could perfectly well do the work but they never get a foot in the door for a host of reasons, usually political. Despite there being no evidence that outsourcing gives a better service (irrespective of cost), it gets CS off the public payroll which is good enough for the irksome right wing media.
|
|
|
|
Ignoring the politics:
6 months ago (roughly) oil was around $60-$70 per barrel.
It is now $95. A rise of 50%
the exchange rate in June 2007 was around $2.00 =£1. It is now $2.10 ish . A rise of 5%.
So in Pounds terms , the price of a barrel has risn from around £32 to around £45.2 .. a rise of 41%
1 barrel = 42 US gallons or around 37 imperial gallons.
So crudely (:-) ) the price of the raw oil has risen by £0.35 per gallon or 8p per litre.
Add fuel tax 2p
Total rise 10p per litre.
(These are very crude order of magnitude nos..)
And of course as oil prices rise, the cost of processing oil (and associated chemicals) is likely to rise as well.
With oil usage increasing 2% pa and oil output rising less than that, the long term is only one way... and as output falls with Shell BP, Exxon.. we are increasingly dependent of Russia, the Middle East and Africa - all places noted for their political stability.. not.
madf
|
in a nutshel to people like Ian G a lot of people in this country that provide services to keep the country running and have to suffer low wages and unsocial hours need a car to do the work ,i know its been discussed before but as an example my wife who works for the nhs would need to catch 3 buses and walk a mile if she couldnt have a car,she neither wants to join a political party or emigrate (grandkids now see )so please see the full spectrum of people that on limited means dont get pay rises to cover this large increase (i had to pay £1.20 for a loaf of bread yesterday,how much has that increased because of extra duty? it was £1,07 last week)
I sell cars for a living and am often asked what is my contribution to all this global moaning? make it worse i say ;-)
smiley smiley smiley smiley
|
There's no point boycotting brands. They are just brands these days.
If you boycott Marks and Spencer's trifles, how will that hurt the maker- 3663 Foodservice who make them for all the supermarkets? It's the same with fuel, it's just a logo and marketing strategy. The refineries are rarely owned by the oil companies, the garage forcourts hardly are, the distribution is just done by P&O, DHL etc.. They sell each other's fuel and the supermarkets sell a mixture of all oil companies' fuel. All you'll hurt is the family-owned independent garage.
|
hamsafar
been in m and s and netto today
trifle m and s is £1.99
same thing netto £1.07
im sure they come off the same production line but with a different label and you say tis true?
motoring link? i smoked my primera there after it being parked up a week to save the world
|
|
I have to drive in London from time to time, and it staggers me why anyone would do so voluntarily.>>
For the same reason as anywhere else in the UK it's still better than public transport, especially from the driectness and convenience point of view.
For the price of a return bus journey to my town centre, little more than a mile away, I can buy three litres (or just over) of fuel and take up to three other people in my car up to a distance of at least 25 miles.
From what I hear, it's £4 to travel just to the next station on London's Tube service.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
Edited by Stuartli on 10/11/2007 at 20:52
|
|
|
Gordon M, a very cohesive & persuasive piece. My only concern in today's focus on GW, is that it might persuade everyone that all we need to do is reduce man made CO2 & all will be well. Growing CO2 emissions are, of course, a symptom of growing wealth. The aim of all national & regional economies/nations is to increase economic growth, this leaves the quandary of how to spend the extra wealth without further increasing the environmental impact that extracting the ton of raw material & disposing of the ton of waste causes. Much like your appraisal of the NHS & its bureaucratic monomania on 'targets', the too focused approach can lose sight of the bigger picture - to extend the analogy here: the operation was a success, but the patient died.
The circle we're so desperately trying to sqaure is the desire for increasing consumption, be that notionally 'green' or not, and the necessity of stabilising our eco system under the pestilential assault of humanity. Nature or Gaia is morally neutral & disinterested, it can happily tolerate locust plagues, the rabbit & crane toad pestilence in Australia or the extinction of species. I used to work many years ago on conducting microbiological assays, i.e counting bacteria. Bacteria on a nutrient rich substrate multiply until they use up all the nutrient, then they die. I can't help being reminded, when looking at pictures of our round swirly blue planet , of a circular agar petri dish with the swarming, but doomed, bacteria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
