More petrol.
From Di Y:
"This morning in Coltishall, cheap as chips!"
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
The blog for the afternoon news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
Subscribe to PM
You can stay up to date with PM via these feeds.
PM Feed(RSS)
PM Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I see there's another hauliers' protest.
Their argument seems to be that they can't afford to run their trucks and they should be given tax rebates because their work is "essential".
This suggests two solutions depending on your political viewpoint:
Right-wing: The market has decided that these road haulage businesses are uneconomical. They should be allowed to fail.
Left-wing: We could give these businesses a subsidy to keep them running, but if they're really essential, maybe we should nationalise them and get the best return on our subsidy.
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one confused about the hauliers' argument that they will go out of business because trucks will come over from France fuelled with cheap diesel?
Surely if that works, the UK trucks could pop over to France and fill up there and the playing field would be level again. Am I missing someting here? Or are Eurotunnel behind this somehow?
Complain about this comment
SSCat, not quite sure where this one falls in relation to left/right, but you could say we have built a society on oil which is now fast running out, and so rather than simply putting sticking plasters on the problem via tax/no tax, go bust/nationalise, we should be thinking about a long term replanning of all our dependencies - how we organise our communities, produce our food, distribute our goods etc.
Just spotted the flaw - 'long term' - not something politicians go in for. So do we just leave it to the market ?
Complain about this comment
Hear hear to your first paragraph Anne.
Complain about this comment
Me, too.
Complain about this comment
Eddie, it's just occurred to me - would there be any chance of a green/ecology/behaving responsibly towards the environment, our planet and its future category on the right?
What do other froggers think?
Complain about this comment
my understanding is that the price hikes are less to do with oil running out, and more to do with increase in immediate demand (tho both obviously eventually linked !!).
a piece in the paper says that 950 out of every 1000 people in america own a car, whilst in china it is only currently 20 per 1000 but this is on the increase as their economy grows.
Complain about this comment
Anne (3):
You're right, the "long-term" concept takes this right out of the left-right spectrum and puts things in the realm of common sense.
It's the sort of thing the civil service could/should do. Planning in terms of decades, not "how many votes are we from the next election?".
On days when I walk into work, I pass the site of one of Glasgow's old railfreight terminii, where goods were brought in from docks on the east & west coasts and from England, to be distributed by lightish trucks rather than the juggernauts which now infest the small Victorian streets of the city centre. Ironically, the site is now being cleared to make way for the new branch of Motorway designed to bring even more heavy traffic into the city. That surely can't be joined up, long-term planning?
Complain about this comment
SSCat (1) & Anne P (3) - I can see that hauliers really have a very good case for moaning but I can't see that any subsidy is is justified. If the hauliers' work is essential then the customer/client/whoever will pay the increased cost. If they are not prepared to pay the cost, then by definition, it's not essential. The market will decide. Government can certainly help by generally easing the tax-take, but so subsidies please.
Anne - I think you are spot-on with "re-planning our dependencies". Again, Government can help and initiate things here, especially by promoting a "green" agenda, but in the end it is economics that will force changes.
Complain about this comment
I suppose some chip shops charge £1.129 for a portion, but how do customers pay?
Petrol 119.9p per litre here in Tewkesbury at lunch time.
The problem about hauliers is that as they absorb fuel price increases and pass them on to their customers, the prices of things in the shops go up. This is considered to be a bad thing.
NB. Last week we were told by a politician that price rises are caused by public sector pay awards. I guess this means that if we severely limit the amount MPs may calim on expenses, inflation will tail off...
Complain about this comment
I had a revelation recently. The way to get anything done in this country is be obnoxious. Fuel protest today - using expensive fuel just to protest? Yup - that is going to help. Never driven myself so that "holier than thou" tee shirt came in useful again
If you do not like someone be very rude about them. I am hopefully critical of certain people but have resisted a full scale critical attack until I am part of the network that actually receives proper information. Otherwise what I am being told is propaganda. And then if what suggested is true - stand back. The bystanders are still there though - protesting they are helpless and looking absolutely hopeless.
Maybe as just seen - I am rash, Eddie but graceful behaviour got me nowt and patience is worse than useless.
The phrase "the best Law that money can buy" keeps coming to my mind - followed not too closely by the word "allegedly".
Yup - being very rude is maybe the way to go. Throw some expensive petrol on this damp squib. Forest fires in some countries clears out brushwood - controlled Fire Works!
Guido Fawkes may get a new convert.
Complain about this comment
"I had a revelation recently"
Wow! I wish I'd had a pauline moment about something.
Complain about this comment
Food for thought:
From the government's point of view, roads are revenue generators (i.e. bring money into the government), public transport are revenue spenders (i.e. spend government money on subsidies etc.)
Someone once theorised that a 50% uptake in public transport would only result in a 5% reduction in road traffic.
As the population ages, the number of taxpayers will decrease and the number of pensioners will increase. Therefore, regardless of what they say about taxation policy, it will be in the interests of governments of all colours to find new and intruiging ways to increase taxes whilst pretenting they're decreasing them.
Whilst encouraging more freight to use the rail system may be good ecologically, presumably such a policy would require more frequent maintenance of the lines used - so a (long overdue) overhaul of railway maintenance policies and procedures would also be needed (dare I mention Rugby?)
Whilst decreasing fuel duty may seem a popular idea amongst tabloid journalists, if the government did do it:
a) where would they regenerate the lost income?
b) tabloid journalists would still lynch them - for abandoning a whole raft of "green" targets (no doubt with the support of FoE & co.)
Complain about this comment
This is going to sound like a daft question, but is the tax we pay on fuel set at n% per litre or n% of the price we pay?
In other words presumably we are not using that much more petrol than before so in the first case the government 'take' will only vary when they change the rate. Or in the second case every time the price at the pump goes up they rake in more money. If the latter they can easily afford to forgo an extra 2p.
Complain about this comment
Mittfh (13a) A windfall tax on the petrol companies' profits would compensate for the lost duty income, I would imagine.
Complain about this comment
Whilst idle looking for a definition of podcast I inadvertantly googled pods (try it) and came across a very clever US system. Now why can we have something like that over here for hauliers and normal peeps?
And whatever, happened to motorail?
Hmmn
Complain about this comment
Anne P (14) - The government gets other oil revenue apart from the per litre duty.
The increase in the price of oil increases the profits of the oil companies that are subject to North Sea Oil taxation.
The price of fuel at the pump also includes VAT - so the higher the cost the more VAT that the goverment takes. Not sure what the figure is but they have gained a lot this way.
There may be other ways as well that I don't know.
Complain about this comment
My congrats are in order today. You have had 2 thoroughly disgusting stories; 1st UN depravity, and 2nd Flex Pets. I have commented on the 1st already on another section of this blog; but Flex Pets? I mean Flex Pets! Have we (as a species) come to a place where even the simplest thing, like having a dog, can be even conceived of as being part-time?! The older I get and the more that I unfortunately know about humans (celebrity-mania, for example), the more I hope that an asteroid puts us all out of our misery, fairly soon!
Complain about this comment
Just a thought RE the "competition" from overseas hauliers crossing the channel with full tanks of cheap diesel and transporting for a week before returning to the continent to top-up more cheaply. Why not a single clause Parliamentary bill that "All commercial vehicles leaving the country via Ferry or Channel Tunnel are required to do so with full fuel tanks". They would then be obliged to fill up with diesel at a similar price to local hauliers and thereby restore "equality" within a competitive market! If they can still undercut local hauliers then neither side can complain.
Complain about this comment
"but is the tax we pay on fuel set at n% per litre or n% of the price we pay"
both. Duty is 50p/litre and VAT is paid on the fuel plus the duty (tax on a tax !). So more than half of the pump price is tax.
50p/litre for diesel + 50p/litre duty + 17.5p VAT = 117.5 p/litre. For example.
Complain about this comment
cynicaleng (30) Thanks.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS