Fuel protest

[Czechmate]

Unfortunately , the goverment , banks and large fuel companies goes hand in hand as many wealthy people are share holders so witchever governement is in power nothing will be done . So much for watchdogs they are all governemetn puppets

 

[clapham_gull]

There has to be a way for making fuel cheaper for people who need it.

I feel sorry for tradesman in London stuck in traffic jams with people who could readily get on a train or tube.

Those who just can't bear to get on train should be absolutely clobbered for petrol and subsidise those who can't get away without using a car.

There is much more to problem that is worth of debate. For example successive governments making it so bloody easy for supermarkets get planning and thus making shopping for food impossible without a car.

 

[clapham_gull]

dont use BP,Shell etc they give all bullshit about making 1p a litre that is bollocks there margin is 8p a litre use Asda etc and the price will come down

.. all I can say is my Dad used to run independent garages. Hated selling petrol, there was no money in it and had to fork out thousands to fill the tanks. Problem was, if you didn't have petrol - the other things in the shop you made money on (like Mars Bars) didn't sell.

The big retailers put their price down, he had to follow sometimes making a loss. If the price went up, he could either match (not really worth the bother) or stay low then sell out too quickly before he could get another load ! ... leading to loss of sales of other items.

Couldn't win. Hassle he could do without.

From what I understand some of the big petrol retailers would rather not in the business of selling petrol direct the consumer. It isn't really worth their while. When you see the huge headline profits, they aren't being made from petrol unless you know different.

It's a funny business selling petrol. Not much money in it, consumers very sensitive to price but something millions of people need.

What we can agree on is that it raises billions in taxation.

 

[supaseagull]

Quite simply - nothing will be done.

Farmers and lorry drivers who read either the Sun, Mail or Express don't protest when a Tory government is in power.


Sent from my iPhone using the power of Greyskull

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The problem being that many people need to drive to work ( public transport has been run into the ground over the last decade or so ). If people can't afford to get to work then it actually costs the state more.

No. The problem is that huge variations in the costs of housing mean that people are choosing to live further away from their workplaces than they did in the past - and in locations where the journey to work is difficult. They are now seeking someone to blame for the fact that their calculations haven't quite worked out as they hoped.

Incidentally ... public transport is now BETTER than it was in the past and, in Brighton (and London), many MORE people are using it than 10 years ago.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Tax has to come from somewhere. I'd rather it came from Pay as you consume taxes than from the state taking more of my pay packet.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Tax has to come from somewhere. I'd rather it came from Pay as you consume taxes than from the state taking more of my pay packet.

True. Vehicles have such a huge negative impact on the UK in so many different and varying ways. If you want to use them, you're going to pay handsomely for it I'm afraid.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No. The problem is that huge variations in the costs of housing mean that people are choosing to live further away from their workplaces than they did in the past - and in locations where the journey to work is difficult. They are now seeking someone to blame for the fact that their calculations haven't quite worked out as they hoped.

I disagree - many people I know now travel further for work as they had to look further afield for a job. The scarcity of jobs currently will only force people to look to travel further for a decent job. I used to look no further away than Crawley when looking for new opportunities - I now look as far as north London due to a lack of good opportunities. I have no desire to move house and uproot my family ( nor could I afford to ) if I end up taking a job further away so my only option, if I want a better job, is to travel more.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I disagree - many people I know now travel further for work as they had to look further afield for a job. The scarcity of jobs currently will only force people to look to travel further for a decent job. I used to look no further away than Crawley when looking for new opportunities - I now look as far as north London due to a lack of good opportunities. I have no desire to move house and uproot my family ( nor could I afford to ) if I end up taking a job further away so my only option, if I want a better job, is to travel more.

It's the other side of the same coin. Either way, the massively challenging journey to work is a comparatively recent phenomenon.

 

[sten_super]

I disagree - many people I know now travel further for work as they had to look further afield for a job. The scarcity of jobs currently will only force people to look to travel further for a decent job. I used to look no further away than Crawley when looking for new opportunities - I now look as far as north London due to a lack of good opportunities. I have no desire to move house and uproot my family ( nor could I afford to ) if I end up taking a job further away so my only option, if I want a better job, is to travel more.

Sorry, but it seems to me that in fact your logic doesn't run counter to Lord Bracknell's point at all. You look further afield for jobs because you have the means and the ability to travel further - as you state you 'have no desire' to move. There's no law which says that you should be able to commute long distances, and no-one owes you (or anyone else) the ability to do that. If you choose to not uproot your family and instead commute I think it's somewhat bizarre to then complain because the cost of doing so changes.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Sorry, but it seems to me that in fact your logic doesn't run counter to Lord Bracknell's point at all. You look further afield for jobs because you have the means and the ability to travel further - as you state you 'have no desire' to move. There's no law which says that you should be able to commute long distances, and no-one owes you (or anyone else) the ability to do that. If you choose to not uproot your family and instead commute I think it's somewhat bizarre to then complain because the cost of doing so changes.

A fair point. I don't actually have an issue when fuel rises because of supply and demand. What I object to is the ever escalating duty on fuel. It was put in place to quieten the green lobby. Until very recently it had little or no effect on peoples buying habits and I suspect the harsh economic climate has more to do with falling sales than the escalator. If the government then used this extra money to subsidise greener car research and development then it would appear reasonable but they don't - it's just a convenient revenue collector.

 

[The Large One]

There has to be a way for making fuel cheaper for people who need it.

I feel sorry for tradesman in London stuck in traffic jams with people who could readily get on a train or tube.

Those who just can't bear to get on train should be absolutely clobbered for petrol and subsidise those who can't get away without using a car.

There is much more to problem that is worth of debate. For example successive governments making it so bloody easy for supermarkets get planning and thus making shopping for food impossible without a car.

Fuel duty in the UK is 57.95p per litre.

For farmers and construction workers, the fuel (colloquially called 'red diesel') is at a reduced rate of 11.3p per litre.

 

[sten_super]

A fair point. I don't actually have an issue when fuel rises because of supply and demand. What I object to is the ever escalating duty on fuel. It was put in place to quieten the green lobby. Until very recently it had little or no effect on peoples buying habits and I suspect the harsh economic climate has more to do with falling sales than the escalator. If the government then used this extra money to subsidise greener car research and development then it would appear reasonable but they don't - it's just a convenient revenue collector.

I agree that the price of fuel has (so far) had very little impact on consumption - IMHO that's partly because the substitutes (i.e. public transport) have also experienced ridiculous price rises meaning they haven't got cheaper (relative to car travel). The fact that driving me and the Mrs almost anywhere (including into the centre of Cambridge and paying parking charges) is cheaper than using public transport drives me crazy. The only places I consider getting a train to are London or (sometimes) Brighton.

Of course the escalation in duty is entirely down to this fact - if the government of the day actually thought that a given price rise would reduce consumption (and therefore revenues) they'd never do it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The fact that driving me and the Mrs almost anywhere (including into the centre of Cambridge and paying parking charges) is cheaper than using public transport drives me crazy

Is this the case though? When I owned a car it was costing me around 3k a year on petrol, tax, insurance,parking and servicing and this is before I add depreciation (I have only ever owned one car and was shocked at how much it had devalued). I can therefore spend £57 on public transport and taxis each week and still break even before considering depreciation. If I include the cost of depreciation then I can even afford to travel by Brighton and Hove Buses.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course the escalation in duty is entirely down to this fact - if the government of the day actually thought that a given price rise would reduce consumption (and therefore revenues) they'd never do it.

This. The answer is to stop buying it. Simples. All the time you keep buying it the government will keep taxing it.

 

[sten_super]

Is this the case though? When I owned a car it was costing me around 3k a year on petrol, tax, insurance,parking and servicing and this is before I add depreciation (I have only ever owned one car and was shocked at how much it had devalued). I can therefore spend £57 on public transport and taxis each week and still break even before considering depreciation. If I include the cost of depreciation then I can even afford to travel by Brighton and Hove Buses.

Fair point, and I should qualify it. The wife needs the car for work (no public transport provision between where we live and she works) so I'm only considering the marginal cost of the individual trip, i.e. petrol and parking charges.

 

[clapham_gull]

Fuel duty in the UK is 57.95p per litre.

For farmers and construction workers, the fuel (colloquially called 'red diesel') is at a reduced rate of 11.3p per litre.

That helps farmers and construction workers....

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Out of interest, how much money is raised from fuel duty and road tax every year? And how much does it cost to maintain the roads. Is there a surplus?

 

[Weststander]

We need more farmers exchanging punches with fat Prescott.

 

[pipkin112]

Out of interest, how much money is raised from fuel duty and road tax every year? And how much does it cost to maintain the roads. Is there a surplus?

(a) Ref 1 above: taxes from motorist amounted to at least £40 billion last year. £6 billion was spent on the roads. Hence the profit to the exchequer was £34 billion. 37% of vehicle miles are driven on the Motorway and Trunk Road Network. The lane length is in the range 52,000 to 61,000 km. Hence, if net taxes are proportional to vehicle-km, the contribution per lane-km has the range £206,000 to £242,000. (E.g. £34 billion times 0.37 divided by 52,000 = £242,000)


Quite a big surplus by the look of it