Fuel Protests?

[Guest Elton]

I'm not a heavy fuel user, although I do burn away about £150-£200 a month normally, but I must admit that my sympathies lie with those who need fuel to make a living, especially as this 'free market' in Eurpoe seems a little one-sided at times.

 

But on the news they reckon that the public's support is flagging. Seeing as everyone I'e spoken to says it hasn't, I'm wondering how much of this is propoganda by the government.

 

Do we, the British public, support the protest for cheaper tax on fuel? I know I do. It'd be interesting, also, to hear from any Americans on the board - would you let your tax get this high in the first place?!!

 

All the best,

 

Elton

 

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

Elton Murphy

Anglers' Net

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk

[Guest dave k]

Like you elton i too am a light user of the car. But i still class it as an esential item and not a luxury.

 

I supported the fuel strike when they held it in September, and feel we would.nt have got the reductions that brown anounced without them.

 

They are begining to loose support over there roling road prostest at the moment though.

 

They should back off now that they have got some consessons and see what else happens.

 

give and take should be the watch word they are using now.

 

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

dave kennedy

[Guest lyn]

I support them 100% the goverment has just tried to smooth things over with the cuts in the budget.

 

It has come to late for some I know, as they had to cease trading their haulage business because of the high diesel cost & vehicle tax!

 

lyn

[Guest uk_lurcher]

I support the fuel protesters too!

 

The response from the chancellor was, IMHO, designed not to placate the fuel protesters but to lose them the support of the public.

 

UKL

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Let's have really cheap fuel, like they do in America. Then we can all drive gas guzzlers down to the paper shop

 

At my age, I don't have too much to worry about global warming (I've checked the liklihood of my property being flooded at www.homecheck.co.uk and it looks like I don't need to worry about that).

 

Shame about the inevitable oil spills from all that crude that needs transporting, but hey! the environment should be able to cope for another 20 or 30 years OK.

 

Sod the Samoans I say, what have they ever done for me?

 

Why should I drive at a fuel efficient 56mph, and plan my journies accordingly, in a small fuel efficient car (which is all I'll be able to afford if petrol prices keep rising).

 

And horror! If the cost of motoring really gets too high, I might start having to use public transport, then they'll have to put on extra buses and the fares will come down, and the service become better!

 

Nah! there's plenty of oil left for another 50 years or so. Keep it cheap - sod the future!

 

Tight heads in the sand - leon

[Guest John S]

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

Why should I drive at a fuel efficient 56mph, and plan my journies accordingly, in a small fuel efficient car

 

I used to drive a 2.8 litre fuel injected Toyota Supra, 40mpg at 56mph. Now I drive a 1.8 litre Volvo 440 which only gives 35mpg.... And they say small engines are more efficient

 

 

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

John Suffill

 

john@go-fishing.co.uk

[Guest Bruno Broughton]

As a rural person and addicted Radio 5 listener, I am sickened by London scribblers telling me I ought to use public transport or cycle. As if putting on two buses a day means I will sell the car or buy a bike for the five-miles (up and down) ride to a supermarket.

 

But... I haven't got a deal of sympathy with lorry drivers who should take their fair share of the blame for helping to destroy the mining industry by breaking picket lines. Nor do I feel any empathy with large farmers (really land managers) who didn't tuck some of the piles of cash under the bed when times were good to see them through to now, when they are down to their last Range Rovers. You should see the way tthe land is trashed for a quick return - amazing!

 

But I DO have tremendous sympathy with small farmers - who get shafted by everyone - and farm workers (who work with and get treated like dirt). Just as long as I can count on their support if ever I am on my uppers.

 

What's the betting that the low sulphur fuel will be less efficient, so that you have to buy more to go the same distance... and therefore contribute the same as now to Brown's piggy bank.

 

Fuel prices really ARE too high - have you seen the price of cut logs?

 

 

 

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

Bruno

[Guest John S]

Originally posted by Bruno Broughton:

As a rural person and addicted Radio 5 listener, I am sickened by London scribblers telling me I ought to use public transport or cycle. As if putting on two buses a day means I will sell the car or buy a bike for the five-miles (up and down) ride to a supermarket.

 

Using buses in the big cities is a real pain too.... If I used public transport to visit some of my friends, I would be faced with a journey taking in 3 seperate buses for a total journey time (one way) of nearly 2 hours. Since buses here (Hull) stop running between 10.00 and 11.00 in the evening, I would have to leave almost as soon as I arrived or be faced with a taxi fare home.

 

Alternatively, I can drive there in about 20 minutes for less than half the cost.

 

One thing the fuel blockage in September proved, is that England is dependant on the car.

 

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

John Suffill

 

john@go-fishing.co.uk

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by John S:

One thing the fuel blockage in September proved, is that England is dependant on the car.

 

 

Yes, because we have cheap fuel, we are happy to accept a job which involves an 80 mile drive each way - we need the car.

 

Because we have cheap fuel, we are happy to drive to the supermarket, past the closed down local butcher, the closed down local post office, the closed down local..... - we need the car

 

Because of the danger of traffic, we drive our kids to school, knocking off the odd child cyclist on the way and causing many more parents to make the time to drive 400 yards twice a day - we need the car

 

Because ....... well you get my drift.

 

We have created a car dependent society, destroyed the non-car dependent infrastructure by our car available lifestyles.

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

Nothing wrong with the huge numbers killed and injured each year, the benefits far outweigh the odd dead child (said the elders of the village as they bound another offering to Ka to the stake, in the certain knowledge that it would never be their child sacrificed for the good of all).

 

Nothing wrong with the thousands of premature deaths each year proven to be down to traffic pollution, the many thousands more of impaired lives.

 

Nothing wrong with the concreting over of large parts of our communities for car parks and roads, and many bits in between (here in Kent, it's starting to rain heavily outside again - the river hasn't even began to fine down since last time (oops! sorry Elton, nearly ruined the new forum by starting to talk about fishing )

 

Nothing wrong with the accidental oil spills, the atmospheric pollution (the cleaner we make our exhausts, the more CO2 we produce!), the strain on the NHS, the quality of life issues.

 

Nothing wrong with the fact that, if we have a car for essential journies, we needn't walk down to the shops ever again.

 

Nothing wrong at all.

 

Except that the way of life we have created is totally unsustainable.

 

If you think things are getting bad now, just wait for a few more years of these trends, fuelled by cheap fuel.

 

Not only here, but in the 'developing'world. Think of the effect when the rapidly industralising chinese abandon their bicycles and create a car dependent society modelled on our own, and India, and rural South America and ...........

 

Scary, or what?

 

So, why has it happened? (er Elton, do you want to move this somewhere else and simply put in a link?).

 

A few oil producing countries are sitting on a gold mine, er... large reserves of the world's oil supply. It's their only revenue.

 

They make a fortune by selling the stuff to the rest of us, far too much to spend within their own economies (all that defence equipment they need in their part of the world - oil rich countries make rich targets for invasion), without making their currencies worthless. So they invest overseas.

 

Trouble is when the world economy falters, they lose billions in lowered stock prices.

 

However, a good way of keeping the world economy stoked up is by making energy cheaply available. And they control the pumps, and the prices.

 

So, after driving passed the closed down local greengrocer, we get to buy New Zealand apples at the supermarket, driving passed torn up English apple orchards on the way home (well down here in Kent we do). Cheap fuel makes all of that possible.

 

Fine, but it's all unsustainable.

 

And world governments have woken up to the unsustainability, they have agreed to reduce carbon (CO2) emissions, and to do that, we need to use less fuel as a nation. But how to do that without the bleating of sheep, er the cries of motorists drowning out the voices of reason?

 

Make fuel more expensive by taxing it!

 

Now, 'that's not fair' say the producing nations. 'If you want expensive fuel, we can give that to you' say the producers, and hike up the cost of crude in response.

 

Fair enough - except if we have high fuel costs due to taxation, that extra money flows into our economy. Schools, education, health, infrastructure. Hell, even subsidised and efficient public transport systems if the politicians can get their act together.

 

If the producers control the price at the wells, then the money goes into their economies. (Fair really, as they will lose the benefit of returns on investment in cheap energy type economies).

 

The real battle is not over cheap or expensive fuel, but who controls the price.

 

But heck, I need my car.

 

I vote for cheap fuel, and in a democracy I get what I want right?

 

Even if the way I've got used to living is totally unsustainable.

 

Everybody bleat together, loudly now so that Tony can hear 'We need our cars'.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

ps Boy, wait until I really get going

[Guest Roy Meincken]

No - I don't support the fuel protesters - here's why...

 

Government WILL NOT accept a lower level of "Overall" taxation - this is a fact.

If tax on fuel reduced by (say) 3p/litre, then where will the additional revenue come from? Beer, Wine, Fags? No, they increase these duties annually anyway for as much as they think they get away with.

Raise income tax/VAT? Not this close to an election!

Hauliers/Farmers and the like (heavy users) will only be subsidised by the rest of us if there is a reduction in fuel tax as WE will be paying additional revenue on there behalf.

Now, I use about £150 of fuel per month.(Actually not all that important, but I don't pay for most of it, but get taxed on the benefit) Why do I deserve to pay less? I have to say, I'm not that dissatisfied with the taxes I pay. We've all jumped on this "Protest Bandwagon" and enjoyed our day in the limelight. Done that, what's next?

 

I am NOT a supporter of this government and if I was as dissatisfied with the way Britain is going as some of these protesters, I'd get the hell out of here.

 

Lets face reality and be thankful that we're (mostly) in work, enjoy a reasonable lifestyle and are able to enjoy the good things like fishing, sounding off on the BB and the like.

 

If these opinions cause offence to those logging on or the moderators of this (great) site, then sorry guys - but freedom of speech is still one of our rights.

 

Big love all,

Roy

 

 

 

 

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