Like everyone else, I have had enough of rising fuel prices, especially as I live in a rural Cambridgeshire village.
How to deal with it is a complex issue which the government is currently grasping with. On the one hand, a fuel duty stabiliser might seem an attractive option, but it is a short-term fix as it would work by cutting fuel duty at a time of rising pump prices – as well as increasing duty when prices fall.
Boris Johnson is keen to see this system implemented. David Cameron, on the other hand, is being more cautious, despite a Conservative election manifesto promise to look into a “fair fuel stabiliser”.
Today I have been calling the national media to promote a press release on behalf of Green Alliance and talked through their concerns about a fuel duty stabiliser. They commissioned a report with the Policy Studies Institute which concluded that a fuel duty stabiliser would leave a huge fiscal black hole, resulting in more taxes as it could cost public finances as much as £6 billion in lost revenue. You can read the full report on the Green Alliance website. This is what they say in their press release:
New report reveals a Fuel Duty Stabiliser could cost the public finances as much as £6bn in lost income
According to the research commissioned by Green Alliance a fuel duty cut to bring pump prices back to December 2009 levels would cost the taxpayer almost £6bn in lost revenue.
With a clear upward long-term trend in crude oil prices, going down this route would commit the Government to cutting fuel duty by ever increasing amounts whilst handing oil companies and petrol retailers the chance to raise prices in the knowledge that the taxpayer would pay the difference.
Chris Hewett, tax expert at Green Alliance, said: “It’s fiscally irresponsible to think the UK government can stop the price of oil going up – cutting fuel duty means other taxes have to go up or further spending cuts need to be made. We need to adapt to this world of high oil prices by focusing on modernising our transport systemâ€.
Roger Salmons, Senior Research Fellow at the Policy Studies Institute at the University of Westminster said: “It is possible to vary fuel duty to flatten out the worst of the price volatility, but to avoid reducing revenue overall it can only smooth out the rising trend in pricesâ€.
Like many motorists, I long for an an alternative affordable and reliable form of transport other than the car. This is the issue which the government needs to address. Where is our long term transport strategy to get cars off the road?
The motor industryb are not keen to get cars off the roads as it would be a disaster for them. I wonder if people are really trying to find alternative fuels
The money needs to come from somewhere. At least there is an element of choice in car usage.
Don’t let on, though. The true rate of tax on petrol is not 60% or thereabouts – as politicians tell us – but actually 200%. People will be very upset when they realise that.
Pump Price 40p
VAT and Duty 80p (2X pump price)
Politicians always say:
Pump Price 120p
VAT and Duty 80p (2/3 pump price)
Huh… Does anyone believe that the government is looking for a way to get cars off the road? All they can do is to claim that fuel is affordable enough, but they MUST (not will) find a way to reduce the price.
Electro -kevin for some people there is no element of choice 🙁
and personally i think if you have to live out of town like many do then you will always need a car…
The only answer is to move into towns but then that is not an option for many either 🙁
so petrol prices just cripple us all 🙁
I know. I live in a town and must commute to work by car because of my shifts.
The things which are being dropped out of our life are gym usage, trips, social visits. We also think a lot harder about how to shop using the minimum amount of travel.
This is what I meant by ‘element of choice’ and we are having to make tough choices … certainly not whether to choose the house white over the Chablis in a restaurant as Nick Clegg seems to think. (I’d love to live on his planet.)
Wait ’til green policies really start to kick in.
We pay far too much tax on petrol.
Its a finite resourse , it should not therefore be cheap otherwise we will all continue to use and abuse .
Just look at all the Mums who are too damned lazy to walk the kids to school to see that it needs to possibly be even more expensive ( this will wind you all up Im sure ! )
you know those bastards actually check people’s diesel in rural areas to make sure it’s not the coloured stuff you get cheap to go in tractors: who the hell do they think they are?
if that’s what police are wasting their time on (and remember, wasting police time is a crime so they themselves should be punished for it) then their numbers ought to be CUT
that cameron bastard needs a stabilizer. something like heavy antipsychotics and lithium and a long term section in broadmoor would do him just fine
i loathe those tory bastards
i hate labour more
and as for lib dems… don’t even go there
i’m strictly central and i want LOW TAXES FOR THE RICH so when i’m rich i don’t have to leave the country
what am i saying? soon as i can get it together i’m fleeing this fleapit for once and for all!
least when you live abroad it someone ELSE’s social problems you put up with and it’s rude to give opinions on other people’s governments so my severe irritation with the british chamber of fuck-ups. sorry house of commons. should fade…
… ps are you very much into the prescription of diamorphine to heroin addicts? there’s a campaign hotting up online and i can get you the links. i’m going to do my bit and write to my own mp and health minister but person number three will be whoever’s in charge of drug policy. do you happen to know that peron’s name?
injectable diamorphine ~ ie pharmaceutical heroin ~ really is the only effective treatment for many long-term heroin addicts. even smokers get NICOTINE patches which salves a craving for NICOTINE. this methadone, whatever researhers claim just does not hit the same spot as heroin, leaves you feeling anything from flat to dreadful and actually exacerbates the physical addiction. it’s ONE advantage is it can be given in supervised doses once per day. one dose per day is NOT the ideal, it works far better as 2 doses per day… there are mountains of research that confirm that diamorphine therapy works better than any other pharmaological treatment for heroin addiction
the facts speak for themselves: everyone i know on long term methadone spent every spare penny on heroin. true they weren’t shoplifting or prostituting and used methadone to keep them straight most of the time. but whenever they had spare cash the drug dealer was the person they rang first. now if methadone worked people just would not do that
i am off heroin and on methadone and suffering mood swings so bad the staff at the clinic think i’m bipolar. i’m not asking for heroin for myself i just want free of all drugs. but for the multiple thousands out there it’s the sensible choice
you can also get smokeable heroin base for heroin smokers (as used in the Netherlands) and prolonged release morphine pills do pretty much the same thing as heroin but without the “hit”. another therapy called dextromethorphan (palfium) works so rapidly by mouth (it gives a “slam”, like knocking back alcohol shots) that many injectors have been able to give up the needle on that. this is another therapy used in Holland.
Switzerland is the only country I know of that gives heroin as a first-line treatment. If heroin is made second-line and is hard to get and hard-won then nobody on it will want to stop it. they want to make it dead easy to get, to reduce a dose and to raise it. and if someone cleans up and relapses they should go straight back on prescribed heroin.
this is the only way we’ll get rid of the heroin problem we have
as for compulsory rehab. well good luck paying for it. most addicts need 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or more rehabs before they finally get clean and pushing people into treatment they don’t want really is a waste of resources