PDA

View Full Version : Fuel Duty increase



fullyautomatix
13th November 2012, 10:25
I see that the utterly incompetent Labour party was trying to force a delay in fuel duty increase and failed. It staggers me. When they were in power they constantly chose to implement an increase in fuel duty and ignored pleas to postpone it. Now they are in oppistion they want to appear to be fighting for the motorists and are protesting the increase of 3P.
Bloody hypocrites.

Scoi
13th November 2012, 10:33
Anyone with an interest in politics knows that the conservatives have had to stop/delay labours rises. Now they are against their own plans but they know the majority of voters don't care about "we've delayed the rise" but will remember "the nasty tories have made your fuel more expensive".

speling bee
13th November 2012, 10:33
I see that the utterly incompetent Labour party was trying to force a delay in fuel duty increase and failed. It staggers me. When they were in power they constantly chose to implement an increase in fuel duty and ignored pleas to postpone it. Now they are in oppistion they want to appear to be fighting for the motorists and are protesting the increase of 3P.
Bloody hypocrites.

Yes, it's almost as if they're an opposition political party looking to court popularity.

fullyautomatix
13th November 2012, 10:39
Yes, it's almost as if they're an opposition political party looking to court popularity.


Would being in opposition mean opposing everything that comes up ? They championed increase in taxes on fuel, air passenger duty, etc etc with the excuse of saving the planet and now they are doing a complete U turn. They must think the voters are blind and deaf.

The Spartan
13th November 2012, 10:50
Damn petrol is extortionately expensive at present in the UK, when I visited the weekend it was 1.32 a litre even petrol in Switzerland is cheaper

vetran
13th November 2012, 10:53
Again & Again I don't understand why they don't continually publish analysis (done by a suitably independent research house) of how bad it would be now if labour had continued.

overlay their average policies on existing events. And any proposed

Debt under - Tories = £X - Labour=£X*1.2 Labour proposed = £X * 0.5
Nurses fired Tories = X Labour = X *-0.2 Labour proposed = £X * 1.5

etc.

speling bee
13th November 2012, 10:55
Would being in opposition mean opposing everything that comes up ? They championed increase in taxes on fuel, air passenger duty, etc etc with the excuse of saving the planet and now they are doing a complete U turn. They must think the voters are blind and deaf.

They're all ******* and will say whatever it takes to get into power and then once in power will do whatever they like, while at the same time saying whatever it takes to get back into power. You seem somehow shocked by it all.

speling bee
13th November 2012, 10:57
Again & Again I don't understand why they don't continually publish analysis (done by a suitably independent research house) of how bad it would be now if labour had continued.

overlay their average policies on existing events. And any proposed

Debt under - Tories = £X - Labour=£X*1.2 Labour proposed = £X * 0.5
Nurses fired Tories = X Labour = X *-0.2 Labour proposed = £X * 1.5

etc.

The difficulty with this is getting any sensible and verifiable analysis of the effect different policies would have on economic growth and tax take. Whichever approach you favour, you will analyse according to your prejudice. There is no hard science behind it.

swamp
13th November 2012, 11:01
I often see van drivers parked up leaving their engines running for a considerable time. It seems fuel needs to be more expensive.

The Spartan
13th November 2012, 11:03
I maybe wrong but if you turn off the engine and then turn it back on it is meant to use more fuel allegedly, plus certain van drivers are probably not actually paying for the fuel out of their own pocket

NorthWestPerm2Contr
13th November 2012, 11:37
If it means the M60 will be better then I say bring on the fuel duty.

EternalOptimist
13th November 2012, 11:40
Would being in opposition mean opposing everything that comes up ?

thats exactly what it means

d000hg
13th November 2012, 11:43
I see that the utterly incompetent Labour party was trying to force a delay in fuel duty increase and failed. It staggers me. When they were in power they constantly chose to implement an increase in fuel duty and ignored pleas to postpone it. Now they are in oppistion they want to appear to be fighting for the motorists and are protesting the increase of 3P.
Bloody hypocrites.Are you new to politics?

MyUserName
13th November 2012, 11:45
thats exactly what it means

Surely it means saying anything you can to get into power and opposing things is merely a frequent by-product of that?

If the ruling party said something that popular opinion was strongly behind the opposition would probably agree and further insist they had been saying it for years etc.

vetran
13th November 2012, 13:04
The difficulty with this is getting any sensible and verifiable analysis of the effect different policies would have on economic growth and tax take. Whichever approach you favour, you will analyse according to your prejudice. There is no hard science behind it.

agree but the main policies are well published and straight lining them will show the present incumbents in a better position (I believe).

Deficit, national debt and government borrowing - how has it changed since 1946? | News | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture)

lukemg
13th November 2012, 13:33
In a further twist, Labour bint was on the radio saying they could pay for the fuel-duty lost revenue by stopping umbrella company contractors from claiming travel and food which they all do apparently.......

AtW
13th November 2012, 13:33
If it means the M60 will be better then I say bring on the fuel duty.

Demand for fuel is unelastic, which is why Govts love to tax it - easily predictable revenues.

BrilloPad
13th November 2012, 13:36
Would being in opposition mean opposing everything that comes up ? They championed increase in taxes on fuel, air passenger duty, etc etc with the excuse of saving the planet and now they are doing a complete U turn. They must think the voters are blind and deaf.

But voters are blind and deaf.


I often see van drivers parked up leaving their engines running for a considerable time. It seems fuel needs to be more expensive.

I think there is way too much traffic on the road. They need to slap another 20p a litre on - and keep doing it until people start to cycle more.

SupremeSpod
13th November 2012, 13:59
But voters are blind and deaf.



I think there is way too much traffic on the road. They need to slap another 20p a litre on - and keep doing it until people start to cycle more.

Are you cycling up at the weekend?

Just asking, like...

Halo Jones
13th November 2012, 14:05
Would being in opposition mean opposing everything that comes up ? They championed increase in taxes on fuel, air passenger duty, etc etc with the excuse of saving the planet and now they are doing a complete U turn. They must think the voters are blind and deaf.

Unfortunately, considering the masses, they would be correct



Damn petrol is extortionately expensive at present in the UK, when I visited the weekend it was 1.32 a litre even petrol in Switzerland is cheaper :eek:

Blimey where was that from? In Essex it averages at 1.42

The Spartan
13th November 2012, 14:11
:eek:

Blimey where was that from? In Essex it averages at 1.42

In Cardiff, 1.42 yikes so you'll be looking at 1.45 a litre once the 3p rise kicks in. I'm considering getting public transport from the airport the next time I fly back for a visit

AtW
13th November 2012, 14:36
Paying over £1.50 per liter of premium diesel in Birmingham because I only want the best for my Peugeot 307.

BrilloPad
13th November 2012, 14:38
Are you cycling up at the weekend?

Just asking, like...

Actually I did discuss that with CM - she suggested it would be easier to get the train up and cycle home. The distance is about right for the double.....

ctdctd
13th November 2012, 14:45
Paying over £1.50 per liter of premium diesel in Birmingham because I only want the best for my Peugeot 307.

:spel and :rollin:

gingerjedi
13th November 2012, 14:54
I maybe wrong but if you turn off the engine and then turn it back on it is meant to use more fuel allegedly, plus certain van drivers are probably not actually paying for the fuel out of their own pocket

You are wrong. :smile

Every new 'eco' vehicle has stop start technology, maybe true of very old petrol vans with a carburettor??

gingerjedi
13th November 2012, 14:57
In Cardiff, 1.42 yikes so you'll be looking at 1.45 a litre once the 3p rise kicks in. I'm considering getting public transport from the airport the next time I fly back for a visit

Get down to Asda at Pentwyn, sure it was £1.32 yesterday.

I put £75 in ever 4 days. :frown

The Spartan
13th November 2012, 15:17
Get down to Asda at Pentwyn, sure it was £1.32 yesterday.

I put £75 in ever 4 days. :frown

75 quid been driving around much crikey

EternalOptimist
13th November 2012, 15:19
Surely it means saying anything you can to get into power and opposing things is merely a frequent by-product of that?

If the ruling party said something that popular opinion was strongly behind the opposition would probably agree and further insist they had been saying it for years etc.

no, the idea of opposing everything is a sytemised way of providing a devils advocate, which is a good idea. Anyone who has worked in a management that is stuffed with 'yes men' or 'good news men' will understand that.

And if the government come up with a very popular idea, the opposition claim to have invented it first and say they would have implemented it sooner

:rolleyes:

SupremeSpod
13th November 2012, 15:33
no, the idea of opposing everything is a sytemised way of providing a devils advocate, which is a good idea. Anyone who has worked in a management that is stuffed with 'yes men' or 'good news men' will understand that.

And if the government come up with a very popular idea, the opposition claim to have invented it first and say they would have implemented it sooner

:rolleyes:

+1

Checks and balances.

fullyautomatix
13th November 2012, 15:47
Are you new to politics?


No really, I just want them to behave with integrity. Just because they are in politics does not mean they can behave like scumbags.

SupremeSpod
13th November 2012, 15:49
No really, I just want them to behave with integrity. Just because they are in politics does not mean they can behave like scumbags.

Oh Ffs. Do you want to buy some magic beans?

AtW
13th November 2012, 15:49
No really, I just want them to behave with integrity. Just because they are in politics does not mean they can behave like scumbags.

:rollin:

speling bee
13th November 2012, 15:54
No really, I just want them to behave with integrity. Just because they are in politics does not mean they can behave like scumbags.

Why else are they in politics then?

AtW
13th November 2012, 15:58
Why else are they in politics then?

They do it because that's the best way they can serve their country...

MyUserName
13th November 2012, 16:07
no, the idea of opposing everything is a sytemised way of providing a devils advocate, which is a good idea. Anyone who has worked in a management that is stuffed with 'yes men' or 'good news men' will understand that.


So the job of the opposition is to simply oppose everything the party in power says and does, even if it is something they agree with? I would have thought their job was to produce their own policies and explain why theirs would be better.

The end results would probably be similar but the intent seems quite different.


And if the government come up with a very popular idea, the opposition claim to have invented it first and say they would have implemented it sooner

I pretty much said this myself so no argument here.

EternalOptimist
13th November 2012, 16:15
So the job of the opposition is to simply oppose everything the party in power says and does, even if it is something they agree with? I would have thought their job was to produce their own policies and explain why theirs would be better.

The end results would probably be similar but the intent seems quite different.


First off it is not a job, it is a duty. In other words they have an obligation to do it and to do it right.

there are rules, a budget and they have a lot of rights and also powers.

your understanding is perfect for parties that are not in government, but that is not the same thing as 'Her majesties loyal opposition', which is the largets party not in government.

and they do have a duty to oppose



:rolleyes:

moggy
13th November 2012, 16:16
So the job of the opposition is to simply oppose everything the party in power says and does, even if it is something they agree with? I would have thought their job was to produce their own policies and explain why theirs would be better.

The end results would probably be similar but the intent seems quite different.



I pretty much said this myself so no argument here.

IMO opposition parties are scared of offering up their solutions in case A) they are not liked and they lose votes, or B) they are liked and get used by the party in power for their benefit.

The Tories were much the same when in opposition, although they agreed to match everything that labour was doing.

MyUserName
13th November 2012, 16:40
First off it is not a job, it is a duty. In other words they have an obligation to do it and to do it right.

there are rules, a budget and they have a lot of rights and also powers.

your understanding is perfect for parties that are not in government, but that is not the same thing as 'Her majesties loyal opposition', which is the largets party not in government.

and they do have a duty to oppose

:rolleyes:

Sorry I cannot determine the answer to my question :emb

Are you saying that the opposition is obliged to oppose anything and everything that the government in power puts forward, regardless of whether they think it is a good idea - which seemed to be what you said earlier?

Or are they producing their own ideas in accordance with their own policies and explaining why they are superior to the governments, or agreeing with the government after due analysis (although I presume this rarely happens)?

My assumption was the latter but I do not know much about this.

MyUserName
13th November 2012, 16:41
IMO opposition parties are scared of offering up their solutions in case A) they are not liked and they lose votes, or B) they are liked and get used by the party in power for their benefit.

The Tories were much the same when in opposition, although they agreed to match everything that labour was doing.

Probably, I was more talking about what the opposition is meant to do rather than what they actually do! :happy

original PM
13th November 2012, 16:45
in my view it all fails because they forget the most fundamental part of being an MP

you are there to represent the people not for your own self serving aims...

until we have honest people as MP's you can forget the government being full of anything but spoilt little shits whos sole interest is lining their own pockets and spouting absolute bollocks to anyone who points a camera their way.

EternalOptimist
13th November 2012, 17:10
Sorry I cannot determine the answer to my question :emb

Are you saying that the opposition is obliged to oppose anything and everything that the government in power puts forward, regardless of whether they think it is a good idea - which seemed to be what you said earlier?

Or are they producing their own ideas in accordance with their own policies and explaining why they are superior to the governments, or agreeing with the government after due analysis (although I presume this rarely happens)?

My assumption was the latter but I do not know much about this.

Her majesties loyal opposition (labour) has a duty to oppose. they have a budget to do so, they have the right to table questions, propose amendment to legislation and a whole host of other priviledges and rights. They set up a shadow cabinet.

Opposition parties (labour, UKIP, greens...etc..etc) can propose alternative policies, boo , hiss, organise whips.

MP's can vote. and get cheap drinks in any of the many commons bars


:rolleyes:

MyUserName
13th November 2012, 17:17
Her majesties loyal opposition (labour) has a duty to oppose. they have a budget to do so, they have the right to table questions, propose amendment to legislation and a whole host of other priviledges and rights. They set up a shadow cabinet.


*scratches head*


Are you saying that the opposition is obliged to oppose anything and everything that the government in power puts forward, regardless of whether they think it is a good idea - which seemed to be what you said earlier?

Perhaps a yes or no answer would be easiest?

EternalOptimist
13th November 2012, 17:26
*scratches head*



Perhaps a yes or no answer would be easiest?

yes

speling bee
13th November 2012, 17:36
*scratches head*



Perhaps a yes or no answer would be easiest?

No.

EternalOptimist
13th November 2012, 17:38
No.

yes

speling bee
13th November 2012, 17:42
yes

Glad you agree with me.

Paddy
13th November 2012, 17:47
in my view it all fails because they forget the most fundamental part of being an MP

you are there to represent the banks and your own self serving aims...

until we have honest people as MP's you can forget the government being full of anything but spoilt little tulips whos sole interest is lining their own pockets and spouting absolute bollocks to anyone who points a camera their way.

FTFY

EternalOptimist
13th November 2012, 17:49
Glad you agree with me.

buzz off

Peoplesoft bloke
13th November 2012, 23:46
I see that the utterly incompetent Labour party was trying to force a delay in fuel duty increase and failed. It staggers me. When they were in power they constantly chose to implement an increase in fuel duty as instigated via the fuel duty escalator brought in by the previous Tory government and ignored pleas to postpone it. Now they are in oppistion they want to appear to be fighting for the motorists and are protesting the increase of 3P.
Bloody hypocrites.
Ftfy
All parties are liars and hypocrites

AtW
13th November 2012, 23:47
Ftfy
All parties are liars and hypocrites

The only difference is that Labour is only against raising taxes when they are in opposition :laugh

ZARDOZ
14th November 2012, 00:28
Anyone with an interest in politics knows that the conservatives have had to stop/delay labours rises. Now they are against their own plans but they know the majority of voters don't care about "we've delayed the rise" but will remember "the nasty tories have made your fuel more expensive".

Anyone with a half decent memory or youngsters with reasonable research skills will know petrol started to go through the roof when the Tories introduced this.

Fuel Price Escalator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator)

AtW
14th November 2012, 00:30
Anyone with a half decent memory or youngsters with reasonable research skills will know petrol started to go through the roof when the Tories introduced this.

Fuel Price Escalator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator)

"The fuel price escalator was introduced by the Conservative government in 1993 and set at an annual increase of 3% ahead of inflation, later rising to 5%. After gaining power in 1997, the rate of increase was raised by the Labour government to 6% per year"

If Liebor were against it then they'd reduce it instead. Escalator existed for 4 years of Conservative rule and like what, 12 years of Labour?

Cliphead
14th November 2012, 00:32
I couldn't tell you the price of fuel and don't care. If I want to drive I buy fuel, end of.

What to do about escalating prices, fuel companies making record profits? No fckn idea but if you don't like it then do something about it.

AtW
14th November 2012, 00:59
I couldn't tell you the price of fuel and don't care. If I want to drive I buy fuel, end of.

WHS

Now where are the keys to my HMMWV?

Scrag Meister
14th November 2012, 08:10
They do it because that's the best way they can serve their own interests...

FTFY

Peoplesoft bloke
15th November 2012, 20:10
"The only difference is that Labour is only against raising taxes when they are in opposition"

If you honestly believe that, you're even more of a ****wit than you appear. Hypocrisy and policy-flip flops aren't the sole preserve of any one party, as you would know if you been blessed with an ounce of brainpower. :winker:

AtW
15th November 2012, 20:39
"The only difference is that Labour is only against raising taxes when they are in opposition"

If you honestly believe that, you're even more of a ****wit than you appear. Hypocrisy and policy-flip flops aren't the sole preserve of any one party, as you would know if you been blessed with an ounce of brainpower. :winker:

That's true.

However one party is more likely to make higher taxes than the other - that party name is Labour.

Now you might agree whether it's right or not, but fundamentally Labour are the ones who'd have higher taxes.

Maybe LibDems would do worse but they will never get a chance to prove it, thankfully.

Peoplesoft bloke
15th November 2012, 22:36
That's true.

However one party is more likely to make higher taxes than the other - that party name is Labour.

Now you might agree whether it's right or not, but fundamentally Labour are the ones who'd have higher taxes.

Maybe LibDems would do worse but they will never get a chance to prove it, thankfully.

Are you talking theoretically now or based on past performance? Because the burden of taxation has risen steadily since the war no matter who is in power. We've had a few blips and it's been up and down under Labour and Tories, but the overall trend is up, regardless, amd no post war government has significantly cut taxes, altough they have fallen slightly at times under both parties.

AtW
15th November 2012, 23:40
Are you talking theoretically now or based on past performance? Because the burden of taxation has risen steadily since the war no matter who is in power.

The tax burden is going up naturally because people live longer - social security state costs a lot of dosh.

It's not just Labour to blame for it, but all things equal one party is more likely to tax than the other, and that party name is Labour.

Paddy
16th November 2012, 05:20
The tax burden is going up naturally because people live longer - social security state costs a lot of dosh.

It's not just Labour to blame for it, but all things equal one party is more likely to tax than the other, and that party name is Labour.

Bollox. Statistics from life insurance companies (I know that first hand!) shows that life expediency has not increased. The greatest risk for insurance companies is that a person will die before retirement age and therefore will be a payout to the spouse and family.

The increase in tax burden in the UK has come about from the billions of pounds spent on military campaigns since 1990 and wasted government projects.

The greatest decrease in tax revenue is from business. Small business pay tax, large multinational corporations crush small businesses and don't pay taxes. Just look at what happened to independent coffee shops.

Privatisation has hidden costs to the country such as rail privatisation, previously BR used to manufacture and maintain their own trains. Under privatisation it is f^c£ useless Siemens. Loss of UK jobs = loss of tax revenue.

F^c£ing environmental policies have ruined the country and cost the tax payers billions.

Blair flooded the country with foreign 'workers' but those workers are allowed to claim child benefit for children still living back in Poland. My local town hall has a separate enquiry section just for Polish speaking claimants! FFS!!!

Coal mines were closed down and Belgian coal was imported that cost 20% more. No doubt the coal comes from else where now.

30% of your council tax goes on pensions for council workers.

Now shove that up your RS232 port!

Peoplesoft bloke
16th November 2012, 08:47
The tax burden is going up naturally because people live longer - social security state costs a lot of dosh.

It's not just Labour to blame for it, but all things equal one party is more likely to tax than the other, and that party name is Labour.

So as usual your contention is purely on the basis of your own bigoted dogma rather than even the most cursory look at.any evidence.

Old Hack
16th November 2012, 09:00
I couldn't tell you the price of fuel and don't care. If I want to drive I buy fuel, end of.

What to do about escalating prices, fuel companies making record profits? No fckn idea but if you don't like it then do something about it.

WCHS +1

If you are worried about the price of fuel, buy a cheaper to run car, or start using public transport.

Unless cold fusion comes soon, or an alien lands and gives us cheaper energy, the price will simply go up, and up, and up and if you don't like it, do something about it.

There are technologies out there, in which you get serious grants from, which can save you heaps of money. We bought a multifuel energy manager for £8k which was already subsidised by the Government by £6k. We have Solar panels which generate enough money to give me a profit in 7-9 years, and have a lifespan of 25 years +, we have a small wind turbine generating money (it's quite shite though and we will buy a new one once we have moved), we have a ground source heat pump and don't really have to heat the house at all. Have you triple insulated your loft?

So many things you should be doing.

d000hg
16th November 2012, 09:12
Question - is fuel duty imposed as a %, or as a fixed amount per litre? If the former then why would it need to go up; if the latter then why isn't it the former?

The Spartan
16th November 2012, 09:27
We have Solar panels which generate enough money to give me a profit in 7-9 years, and have a lifespan of 25 years +

Just had a new boiler installed and I looked at solar panels but I'm thinking in 3 years we'll move so I decided not to have them installed. There were a few companies installing them for free which I applied for but the roof is apparently to small, which is bollocks as when I rang them and asked them to come out to see how much it would cost me to have them if I paid they didn't mention the roof was too small and I even mentioned it.

Old Hack
16th November 2012, 09:52
Just had a new boiler installed and I looked at solar panels but I'm thinking in 3 years we'll move so I decided not to have them installed. There were a few companies installing them for free which I applied for but the roof is apparently to small, which is bollocks as when I rang them and asked them to come out to see how much it would cost me to have them if I paid they didn't mention the roof was too small and I even mentioned it.

They operate on the principle they make the tarif, so they'll only put it on your roof for free if it's tangible for them to make a profit. It's actually a very good test for homeowners to take before they decide, for it they will not do it, it's not worth you doing it either!