fuel protests

[Tony U]

UK the price you are paying at the pumps now, would as I suspect be the same whichever political party was in power, with the exception of the greens in which case it would be much higher.

At 25 you will be too young to remember that the high fuel tax policy was something that was endorsed and practised by the Conservatives, they can say now that they would reduce the tax burden but that is easy when in opposition.

If its all down to taxation explain to me why the differential between diesel and unleaded at the pumps is now between 6-10p when tax would only account for a differential of 1-2p?

Or is the answer that the oil companies have deliberately witheld the expansion of diesel refining capacity in Europe (the US does not use much diesel), in order to raise the price?

 

[ 13. September 2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Tony U ]

[kleinboet]

Even here on AN you are all barking up the wrong tree. We have the yes-men saying that if the government cut the tax, where is the government going to get the money, which tax do we want raised or which hospital must they close??????

I see it this way: The government has helped themselves to a windfall, as the tax on fuel is 61% NOT A MONETARY FIGURE!! Work it out, if petrol costs 23p and goes up to 25p it would only be 2p but with the tax it is a LOT more. The government should say they want, say 50p, on each litre of fuel and watch the price drop dramatically. I believe the present COST of fuel is around 35p THE REST IS TAX!!!!!

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I have read the thread and the one thing I don't see is a mention of the commodities market or futures.

 

These are the areas where profiteering takes place and they control the markets, some tankers loads are sold several times over whilst at sea.

 

These and other cartels is pushing up the price of crude.

 

Hi Ian W,

 

We were told fifty years which leaves between fifteen and twenty years, don't forget that is a guessermation not a precise fact.

 

Add to that all the oil which it was considered to be to expensive to extract when the forecast was made.

 

Take of 10% of the tax and those I mentioned above will soon take up the slack.

 

We all have to except that consumption has out stripped supply, it might marginally improve in the short term but don't bank on it.

 

One way to help out is to make it to expensive to run juice guzzling cars by increasing road tax.

 

£50 road tax for vehicles under 1000cc increasing £20 per 100cc.

 

The same with outboard engines and boat engines i.e. spread the load through the luxury market.

 

Some will hate me for saying it but we cry foul on pollution yet want cheap fuel to waste.

 

It is the one area I seriously fall out with the USA, it is about time they came to terms with the fact that they live in the same world as the rest of us and not planet heaven.

[kleinboet]

I'm not asking for cheap fuel. You say charge more car tax. WHY? To give the government more money to fight another Iraq? Read when the road tax was first introduced. We (motorists) were given a solemn promise that road tax would be used for just that - ROADS!!! Have you looked at the state of them. All the tax raised by motorists are used for everything BUT roads. When the motorists complain they are told that "there is no money for road repair at present". Any money (including the "windfall" from the new higher prices) goes into the "black hole" that is the chancelors purse for the country and used for what THEY believe is best for US!!!

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

I'm with Kleiny. We are paying more because Brown is keeping a windfall and can blame it one someone else. Petrol is about 35p, which is cheap enough for my liking. Tax is about 65 to 70p which frankly is exorbitant.

 

If the oil companies want to charge a little more for diesel, then so be it, who cares - the petrol companies are in business AND they know generally you will get better MPG so yeah, why not charge more (I would if I had a product like that).

 

---------------

 

With regards to the environment I am not a big believer in global warming as such - it's a highly contentious issue when you look at what the media tell us and actually investigate the science. Thats not to say it isn't happening, BUT, there is a big argument that this is all a bit of a big fuss about nothing (quite a big convincing argument actually).

 

Between 1990 and 1995 for example hurricanes were majorly down in numbers in the states - no one worried about that statistic (rightly so). Likewise no one worries about the fact that less than 95% of co2 emissions are COMPLETELY unavoidable (i.e. from nature, not humans) and that car petrol makes up about half a percent of the fuel contributing to the remaining 5% (yet we are told that this is what is causing the problem primarily). Evidence also shows temperature variations over history much greater than we are seeing now, AND if you look at satellite data since the early seventies there is no clear pattern of global warming (up and down all the way through to the late nineties).

 

The biggest polluter is apparently power stations, so that brings us to Nuclear Power.

 

The problems you get with Nuclear fuel are vastly over-dramatised - yes, accidents will happen, but then people die driving cars, flying in airliners - which I appreciate do not have long term issues, BUT, accidents are rare in the industry. If you look at the statistics for Nuclear fuel it is probably quite safe and viable. That's not to say that safety cannot be improved, and I think I read an article about some big French power company having developed a new breed of nuclear power station which is a great deal safer than those in present use.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

No, cut polution and save on fuel.

 

Road tax has never been used for roads.

 

My point is reward those who drive small cars, with my idea a 1200cc engine would cost £90, my current 1600cc would cost £170, a 4000 juice machine would cost £650.

 

There is a big knock on effect with this type of tax. The bottom would fall out of big engine cars and force the manufacturers to come up with some real ideas for a change.

 

This is not just a case of high fuel cost it goes a lot deeper than that and has been coming for the last decade or so.

[Sharkbyte]

Uk Fishing Tackle, word for word my opinions too.

 

What on earth do people voting in Labour for another term honestly expect. All the non jobs, top heavy NHS and a generally overflowing civil service, single mothers ltd, laughable immigration controls, loafers on the sick..........etc etc etc all need paying for.

 

One day the gravy trains going to come off the rails.

 

Without a doubt though our oil consumption will have to be replaced by something much more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Vegetable / plant based alternatives to diesel are not being pursued enough in my opinion.

As for nuclear, past accidents and mistakes have surely been part of the learning curve. The fact remains that as long as the waste materials are processed or stored safely it creates zero emissions.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Ian,

 

Forget global warming there are major cities through out the world where there is a roaring trade in oxygen cafes because the poor sods are choking to death on car fumes and that is a fact written in slabs of stone.

 

Whether it does or does not effect global warming we are still running out crued and each year the demand increases through out the world.

 

I am 62 so with a little luck I could last another fifteen years or maybe less so what happens after that is of little consequence to me, but all of the future generations will be in big trouble if the situation is not addressed now.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

I am 25 and have just had our first baby daughter ten days ago, so the future is something I consider to be important.

 

With regards to smog in cities then yes, I can accept that the pollution in that specific area might be a health concern - but there is no alternative - public transport (a la buses) knock out as much crap as ten cars...

 

Congestion charging is probably the answer, and it is perhaps one of the few things I can see making a difference to such areas. However, the danger is that a city like Lincoln (near us) starts charging congestion fees not because of wanting to deter vehicles for health reasons (there is no smog over lincoln) BUT more to generate income for the council (in much the same way coppers use speed cameras).

 

At last Sharkbyte, an outspoken anti-labour poster. To be honest I've got involved in a few similar threads and it's unbelievable how many people sit on the fence when it comes to politics. This argument really is a no brainer. You can debate environmental issues etc until the cows come home (not really relevant) but the FACT remains our petrol prices are ridiculously expensive because we have the highest taxation on the product in Europe.

[chevin]

Here is a useful tip for times of rising fuel prices. If you have hankered for something a bit better than the average car, now is the time that you can probably get a good second hand one at a more than reasonable price. Eventually we will come to terms with the higher fuel charges and the price of those cars will return to their normal level. In the early '70s when fuel prices were rising, I bought a Rover 2000TC that was three years old for 350 quid. Minnies of the same year were selling at 1,000 quid! The way I looked at it was that I buy my cars from savings - fuel comes from pocket money. I had that car - leather upholstery, walnut dashdoard, stainless exhaust, all the bits and pieces fitted into Rovers - for three years and in that time, it cost me only a battery. I sold it for 300 quid cash the day before I came out to Oz. Although it cost me a bit more in fuel, I was still ahead in the long run and I had three years driving what - to me - was a fairly luxurious car.