Heads Up: Transport Crisis Looming
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some of you are so misguided, really.
Firstly, global warming has very little to do with the fuels being burnt today and everything to do with the fuels burnt in the seventies and before. The floods have very little to do with the exhaust fumes being put out today and everything to do with the lack of trees in this country. Also, the fact that we (humans) are clearing forests at the rate of a football pitch each minute is also the single most contributory factor.
I don't support the blockading of supermarkets at all, in any way whatsoever. I do support direct action at the pumps and refineries with an allowance for essential services. The Government are taking us for a ride. They shouldn't be using this money to prop up social services and education but rather to wean us off fuel and onto something more ecological which they clearly are not! Because, my misguided friends, that would be suicide as far as they are concerned. Anyone still around in forty years time will reap the benefit when it all runs out, or sooner if the Arabs decide they've had enough.
Uncle Joe's Mintballs, you may have lost £20 G's but there are plenty of hauliers going out of business a) because they cannot compete on road tax with foreign haulage firms and b) those same foreign firms bring long-range tanks and never buy fuel here.
Farmers: If you wanted to show your ignorance, what plainer way than to say "The farmers have cost the taxpayer £5b with the BSE fiasco and feel they have a God given right to be bailed out whenever the market goes against them."
In the first place the BSE crisis is not all their fault. Indeed most of them relied on government guidelines as to what they could or could not feed their livestock. They were assured it was safe and so they continued to feed them recycled cows and sheep. Also, they generate far more revenue than 5bn a year, let alone in the last ten. Isolating the farming community is not a sensible attitude. Indeed they have far more right to their business than you do considering that theirs can be classed as an essential industry; I can do without car hire firms, thank you very much, but I can't do without food! Sorry, nothing personal, as I'm sure you are very proud of your business, but fact nonetheless.
Yes Bodger, they do use red diesel but the price has rocketed from 8p a litre to 26p a litre in less than five years, as has heating oil! Not, I think you'll agree, a fair rise in keeping with inflation and a tractor does about ten miles to the gallon!
If they told me that 75% of my fuel tax went towards research into new types of fuel for our transport systems then I would pay a pound a litre quite happily, because with that level of funding my next car would run on water or hydrogen: Not only clean but plentiful. Is this the case? NOPE! For them it's just a way of keeping unpopular income tax down and pulling the wool over our eyes. Also, do away with fossil fuels and they lose a substantial income. Not really a very ecological argument for taxing fuel and using it to bolster social services is it?
As Huge Organ rightly pointed out this is as much about a beligerent government attitude to the will of the people as anything else. Peaceful complaining has achieved nothing in five years so pumping up the volume is the only answer. Dictatorships invariably cause mob rule in the end, it's the natural order of things.
Do like me, buy a couple of jerry cans from an army surplus shop and stock up for a month of fuel rations.
Firstly, global warming has very little to do with the fuels being burnt today and everything to do with the fuels burnt in the seventies and before. The floods have very little to do with the exhaust fumes being put out today and everything to do with the lack of trees in this country. Also, the fact that we (humans) are clearing forests at the rate of a football pitch each minute is also the single most contributory factor.
I don't support the blockading of supermarkets at all, in any way whatsoever. I do support direct action at the pumps and refineries with an allowance for essential services. The Government are taking us for a ride. They shouldn't be using this money to prop up social services and education but rather to wean us off fuel and onto something more ecological which they clearly are not! Because, my misguided friends, that would be suicide as far as they are concerned. Anyone still around in forty years time will reap the benefit when it all runs out, or sooner if the Arabs decide they've had enough.
Uncle Joe's Mintballs, you may have lost £20 G's but there are plenty of hauliers going out of business a) because they cannot compete on road tax with foreign haulage firms and b) those same foreign firms bring long-range tanks and never buy fuel here.
Farmers: If you wanted to show your ignorance, what plainer way than to say "The farmers have cost the taxpayer £5b with the BSE fiasco and feel they have a God given right to be bailed out whenever the market goes against them."
In the first place the BSE crisis is not all their fault. Indeed most of them relied on government guidelines as to what they could or could not feed their livestock. They were assured it was safe and so they continued to feed them recycled cows and sheep. Also, they generate far more revenue than 5bn a year, let alone in the last ten. Isolating the farming community is not a sensible attitude. Indeed they have far more right to their business than you do considering that theirs can be classed as an essential industry; I can do without car hire firms, thank you very much, but I can't do without food! Sorry, nothing personal, as I'm sure you are very proud of your business, but fact nonetheless.
Yes Bodger, they do use red diesel but the price has rocketed from 8p a litre to 26p a litre in less than five years, as has heating oil! Not, I think you'll agree, a fair rise in keeping with inflation and a tractor does about ten miles to the gallon!
If they told me that 75% of my fuel tax went towards research into new types of fuel for our transport systems then I would pay a pound a litre quite happily, because with that level of funding my next car would run on water or hydrogen: Not only clean but plentiful. Is this the case? NOPE! For them it's just a way of keeping unpopular income tax down and pulling the wool over our eyes. Also, do away with fossil fuels and they lose a substantial income. Not really a very ecological argument for taxing fuel and using it to bolster social services is it?
As Huge Organ rightly pointed out this is as much about a beligerent government attitude to the will of the people as anything else. Peaceful complaining has achieved nothing in five years so pumping up the volume is the only answer. Dictatorships invariably cause mob rule in the end, it's the natural order of things.
Do like me, buy a couple of jerry cans from an army surplus shop and stock up for a month of fuel rations.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This may be a little off subject but,just to remind me,aren't these hauliers the same people who were gladly hauling coal to the power stations(under police protection) when the miners were on strike in the 80's.Now they are having a bad time they expect everyone else to feel sorry for them.There's more to this business than fuel tax.
[This message has been edited by bodger (edited 01 November 2000).]
[This message has been edited by bodger (edited 01 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have an Idea.
Let's shoot the people who keep whinging about fuel.
I voted for the current government and don't see why some tabloid-reading morons should be allowed to destroy everyone else's lives because they 'don't like' the price of fuel.
And just to correct something said earlier, as no one has asked the entire population, it cannot be said how many people support the tanker drivers.
Do you really think a Tory Government would be better??
Remember where negative equity started, 15% interest rates, poll tax, Miners strike, corruption, cash for questions, cabinet ministers in jail, Michael Portillo, BSE, etc etc....Need I go on.
Blair is not perfect but has done a better job in 3 years than the Tories did in eighteen.
Edited by myself because it was a bit extreme originally.
[This message has been edited by bigseat (edited 01 November 2000).]
Let's shoot the people who keep whinging about fuel.
I voted for the current government and don't see why some tabloid-reading morons should be allowed to destroy everyone else's lives because they 'don't like' the price of fuel.
And just to correct something said earlier, as no one has asked the entire population, it cannot be said how many people support the tanker drivers.
Do you really think a Tory Government would be better??
Remember where negative equity started, 15% interest rates, poll tax, Miners strike, corruption, cash for questions, cabinet ministers in jail, Michael Portillo, BSE, etc etc....Need I go on.
Blair is not perfect but has done a better job in 3 years than the Tories did in eighteen.
Edited by myself because it was a bit extreme originally.
[This message has been edited by bigseat (edited 01 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rather interesting that when the UK fuel crisis was at its height, Blair
stated that "we do not give in to mob rule".
A few weeks later, the Serbian President was equally standing his
ground and not giving in to mob rule.
What do we see on TV, why Blair and ET encouraging 'mob' rule and
proclaiming "listen to the will of the people - and go!"
Politicians - two faced as always
My mob's better than your mob
stated that "we do not give in to mob rule".
A few weeks later, the Serbian President was equally standing his
ground and not giving in to mob rule.
What do we see on TV, why Blair and ET encouraging 'mob' rule and
proclaiming "listen to the will of the people - and go!"
Politicians - two faced as always
My mob's better than your mob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dictatorships invariably cause mob rule in the end, it's the natural order of things
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oneworld22- Actually, I'm an SNP supporter, but we don't have too many MPs south of the border - in fact, we have as many as the Tories have North of the Border!
Seriously though, my objection (as a Scot, and therefore canny with my cash) is that I think it's immoral to charge tax on taxes (or duties).
I have no problem with paying VAT on goods - I do have a major problem with paying VAT on duties as well. The Tories started this rip-off tax; but (and it shames me to say this of a fellow Fifer ) that idiot Gordon Browm has siezed on it with all the enthusiasm of Maggie at a handbag swinging contest.
I'm even more upset that Scots aren't getting much in the way of benefits from Scots oil, either!
Sean Connery for PM!
------------------
Happiness is a warm L1011
Seriously though, my objection (as a Scot, and therefore canny with my cash) is that I think it's immoral to charge tax on taxes (or duties).
I have no problem with paying VAT on goods - I do have a major problem with paying VAT on duties as well. The Tories started this rip-off tax; but (and it shames me to say this of a fellow Fifer
) that idiot Gordon Browm has siezed on it with all the enthusiasm of Maggie at a handbag swinging contest. I'm even more upset that Scots aren't getting much in the way of benefits from Scots oil, either!
Sean Connery for PM!
------------------
Happiness is a warm L1011
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guvnor,
That's SNP propaganda for you. Scotland gets a good deal from the UK on government spending - the per capita public spend is higher than anywhere else in the UK.
Many of the SNP arguments on oil revenue are also based on some very interesting interpretation of where the England/Scotland border would sit in the North Sea if Scotland declared independence.
As for representation at Westminster, Scotland gets a good deal there too - Scotland has smaller constiuencies therefore elects more MPs (and those MP's can vote on solely English and Welsh issues - the 'West Lothian question' which is a travesty now that we have devolution)
Maybe this is just a cynical English buy-off to keep the union intact? Possibly, but Scotland does get a very good deal. Maybe that comes from the number of Scotsmen in high-office at Westminster.
Secret squirrel,
Agree with you on the alternative fuels issue. With regards to hauliers having to compete with foreign firms and their lower fuel duty, European countries have much higher personal and corporate tax rates than the UK, which I think you'll find more than compensates our higher fuel taxes.
About Red Diesel, yes, the price has gone up massively, but that is almost solely due to the increased cost of crude being passed on by the oil companies. The government duty on Red Diesel is tiny (Just 1 or 2p per litre - anyone got the figures?) So why is the government being blamed for this? Basically the farmers just want to be subsidised in the way that their inefficient French counterparts are. They're just making trouble.
The hauliers have a slightly stronger case, however that could be balanced morally by some sort of entrance tax to hauliers from countries that have toll roads (but that's illegal under EU law). If they operated from France they would have their crippling taxes to pay, but, hell, they would get nice cheap diesel. They'd be moaning about the corporation tax rates then! Why do they think so many French companies are relocating to Kent?
The whole fuel debate is just an extension of the modern British 'I'm alright jack, bugger the rest of you' attitude where some highly motivated individuals who feel that they should pay no tax at all are prepared to stitch up those who are happy to pay their way in society, and do things that are to the detriment of all of us just to achieve their selfish aims.
(extra comments added as I was interrupted mid-flow first time)
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 02 November 2000).]
That's SNP propaganda for you. Scotland gets a good deal from the UK on government spending - the per capita public spend is higher than anywhere else in the UK.
Many of the SNP arguments on oil revenue are also based on some very interesting interpretation of where the England/Scotland border would sit in the North Sea if Scotland declared independence.
As for representation at Westminster, Scotland gets a good deal there too - Scotland has smaller constiuencies therefore elects more MPs (and those MP's can vote on solely English and Welsh issues - the 'West Lothian question' which is a travesty now that we have devolution)
Maybe this is just a cynical English buy-off to keep the union intact? Possibly, but Scotland does get a very good deal. Maybe that comes from the number of Scotsmen in high-office at Westminster.
Secret squirrel,
Agree with you on the alternative fuels issue. With regards to hauliers having to compete with foreign firms and their lower fuel duty, European countries have much higher personal and corporate tax rates than the UK, which I think you'll find more than compensates our higher fuel taxes.
About Red Diesel, yes, the price has gone up massively, but that is almost solely due to the increased cost of crude being passed on by the oil companies. The government duty on Red Diesel is tiny (Just 1 or 2p per litre - anyone got the figures?) So why is the government being blamed for this? Basically the farmers just want to be subsidised in the way that their inefficient French counterparts are. They're just making trouble.
The hauliers have a slightly stronger case, however that could be balanced morally by some sort of entrance tax to hauliers from countries that have toll roads (but that's illegal under EU law). If they operated from France they would have their crippling taxes to pay, but, hell, they would get nice cheap diesel. They'd be moaning about the corporation tax rates then! Why do they think so many French companies are relocating to Kent?
The whole fuel debate is just an extension of the modern British 'I'm alright jack, bugger the rest of you' attitude where some highly motivated individuals who feel that they should pay no tax at all are prepared to stitch up those who are happy to pay their way in society, and do things that are to the detriment of all of us just to achieve their selfish aims.
(extra comments added as I was interrupted mid-flow first time)
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 02 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry but Uncle joe's mintballs is spot on.
Why should the farmers get special treatment at our expense when they are faced with economic reality? Why should other businesses be forced to the brink of bankruptcy and beyond just because the farmers and hauliers feel they are paying too much fuel duty? They'll just have to learn how to become efficient like everyone else has had to. If anyone says it can't be done then they had better learn fast!
PS what has this to do with aviation?
Why should the farmers get special treatment at our expense when they are faced with economic reality? Why should other businesses be forced to the brink of bankruptcy and beyond just because the farmers and hauliers feel they are paying too much fuel duty? They'll just have to learn how to become efficient like everyone else has had to. If anyone says it can't be done then they had better learn fast!
PS what has this to do with aviation?
Guest
Posts: n/a
It wouldn't matter whether Blair or Hague or Kennedy were running the country. Every politician in the Commons has zero integrity and morals, they are all in it to take as much money from Joe Public to line their own pockets.
Just look at the new offices for MP's how many millions were wasted on them?
Meanwhile Adolf Blair and Eva Brown are sitting on £16 billion of OUR money which they will only use to buy their way back into power in a few months.
Anyway before long it won't matter because we'll all be ruled by the even greedier morons in Brussels and Il Presidente Blair and Co will be able to take their places on the EU gravy Train.
Time to emigrate - will the last person out please turn off the lights!
Just look at the new offices for MP's how many millions were wasted on them?
Meanwhile Adolf Blair and Eva Brown are sitting on £16 billion of OUR money which they will only use to buy their way back into power in a few months.
Anyway before long it won't matter because we'll all be ruled by the even greedier morons in Brussels and Il Presidente Blair and Co will be able to take their places on the EU gravy Train.
Time to emigrate - will the last person out please turn off the lights!
Guest
Posts: n/a
From today's telegraph, under the headline "Why The Government Hate and Fear the Fuel Protestors". It's simple really - they claim that they are the 'people's government' and that they listen to the 'people' - yet when the people - over 90% of them according to some polls - demand action they do sweet Fanny Adams.
Politicians - what a bunch of self-serving scumbags!
------------------
Happiness is a warm L1011
Politicians - what a bunch of self-serving scumbags!
DAVID HANDLEY, chairman of the People's Fuel
Lobby, described himself to a House of Commons
committee yesterday as "a rat in a corner". The only
thing a trapped rat can do, he said, is fight back. And
he said it with the roughness of a farmer accustomed
to killing real rats in his Monmouthshire barn, rather
than the suavity of a politician with a casual metaphor.
Mr Handley is a brave man to step into the spotlight in
this way and declare himself a leader of Britain's
previously leaderless army of fuel protesters, which is
threatening another nationwide wave of disruption. The
Government, with the support of union leaders and its
friends in the media, has already launched a concerted
effort not only to frighten him with talk of a hard-line
police response, but also to persuade the nation to
hate him and his cohorts, instead of cheering them on,
as most people did in September.
The Mirror called Mr Handley "a dangerous fool"
yesterday, while the Independent dismissed his
proposed 25,000-vehicle convoy from Jarrow to London
as a "tasteless and selfish stunt" organised not by the
sort of hungry men who led the original Jarrow March,
but by people "who own huge farms (subsidised by the
taxpayer) and multi-million-pound businesses". As the
clock ticks towards the protesters' deadline for
government action on fuel taxes, there will be more of
this kind of spin - just as one Labour minister two years
ago claimed that the mass of countryside marchers
were tenants in fear of eviction, acting under orders
from foxhunting landowners.
But fuel protesters are not broad-acred grandees; they
are farmers who have been made poorer by collapsing
livestock prices and rising costs of fuel and regulation.
Their interests coincide to a large extent with those of
the Countryside Alliance, but the preservation of
hunting would not feature high on their list of priorities,
which have more to do with the raw economics of rural
survival. Nor are they substantial businessmen, but
self-employed truck drivers and other small traders who
drive high mileages to make a living. They are about to
be joined by Britain's fishermen - for whom crippling fuel
costs come on top of the ruin wreaked by EU fisheries
policies.
These groups have certain things in common. They all
have plenty of time to brood on their misfortunes - on
the tractor, in the lorry cab, at sea. They hold robust
opinions - more tabloid and talk-radio than broadsheet
and Radio 4 - but (unlike taxi drivers who also fit this
stereotype) they have few opportunities to express
them.
Margaret Thatcher may have been their kind of
politician, but neither her government nor any other in
recent memory has actually done anything to help
them, and the present one has dismissed their
interests completely. They are predominantly white,
male, middle-aged, in work, home-owning and in
normal circumstances law-abiding, which means that
they do not fall into any of the categories at which
Labour ministers target their heart-on-the-sleeve
concern. In modern political parlance, these people
really are "the excluded".
And the political elite now hates them for their
rat-in-a-corner attempt to fight back. The Government
hates them because it was comprehensively humiliated
by them in September and dropped 17 points in the
opinion polls. Trade unionists seem to hate the
protesters because, in the view of leaders such as John
Edmunds and Bill Morris, the union movement owns a
monopoly on the right to cripple the economy by direct
action, and because the police did not wade in against
fuel protesters as they once did against pickets at
Grunwick and Brampton colliery. The old Left hates Mr
Handley's campaigners because they represent the
kulaks and the bourgeoisie who stand in the way of
revolutions. Self-important commentators such as Polly
Toynbee of the Guardian hate them because their
coarse mode of expression suddenly usurped all
normal channels of influence and debate.
And yet the public was on their side by an
overwhelming majority. Reporters could find almost no
one, however far back in a petrol queue, who was
genuinely angry at the protesters. Easily convinced
that the level of fuel tax was indeed a scandal, the
public recognised the protesters as ordinary citizens
such as themselves, rather than scary anarchists such
as the anti-globalisation rioters. Most seemed
untroubled by the logical difficulty of both supporting
the aim of the protest and not wishing the Government
to give in to it. The unspoken consensus seemed to be
that this conundrum was for the Government to solve
by allowing an interval to pass, then offering a suitable
concession.
But apparently that is not to be - either because
Gordon Brown simply refuses to cut fuel tax, or
because Tony Blair thinks he can reverse the damage
done to him in September. If the Government is
determined to baton-charge the blockades, we are
entering a new game. The protest will take longer to
bite, because public services and retail chains are
better prepared. Petrol queues will be more irksome on
dark, wet November evenings. The broken-down rail
network cannot relieve the strain.
There are signs of faction splits among protesters,
those who blockaded the Stanlow refinery having
declared that they want nothing to do with Mr Handley.
The Government has only to hold its posture for three
or four days to make the protest look pointlessly
anti-social. A fickle public will swiftly swing to the
Mirror's view that Mr Handley "must be stopped".
Or will it? The floods and the state of the railways have
served only to increase public scepticism about the
Government's capacity to act decisively in a crisis.
There is still huge support for the basic cause of
cheaper fuel. The fuel campaigners are still our
neighbours, not enemies of the state. And however
firm-jawed Jack Straw may be, senior police officers
are extremely reluctant to order their men to suppress
a non-violent protest that enjoys widespread public
backing. For want of the promise of a token fuel tax cut
in next week's pre-Budget statement, the Government
may be heading for another catastrophic confrontation.
It should remember that rat bites can sometimes be
fatal.
Lobby, described himself to a House of Commons
committee yesterday as "a rat in a corner". The only
thing a trapped rat can do, he said, is fight back. And
he said it with the roughness of a farmer accustomed
to killing real rats in his Monmouthshire barn, rather
than the suavity of a politician with a casual metaphor.
Mr Handley is a brave man to step into the spotlight in
this way and declare himself a leader of Britain's
previously leaderless army of fuel protesters, which is
threatening another nationwide wave of disruption. The
Government, with the support of union leaders and its
friends in the media, has already launched a concerted
effort not only to frighten him with talk of a hard-line
police response, but also to persuade the nation to
hate him and his cohorts, instead of cheering them on,
as most people did in September.
The Mirror called Mr Handley "a dangerous fool"
yesterday, while the Independent dismissed his
proposed 25,000-vehicle convoy from Jarrow to London
as a "tasteless and selfish stunt" organised not by the
sort of hungry men who led the original Jarrow March,
but by people "who own huge farms (subsidised by the
taxpayer) and multi-million-pound businesses". As the
clock ticks towards the protesters' deadline for
government action on fuel taxes, there will be more of
this kind of spin - just as one Labour minister two years
ago claimed that the mass of countryside marchers
were tenants in fear of eviction, acting under orders
from foxhunting landowners.
But fuel protesters are not broad-acred grandees; they
are farmers who have been made poorer by collapsing
livestock prices and rising costs of fuel and regulation.
Their interests coincide to a large extent with those of
the Countryside Alliance, but the preservation of
hunting would not feature high on their list of priorities,
which have more to do with the raw economics of rural
survival. Nor are they substantial businessmen, but
self-employed truck drivers and other small traders who
drive high mileages to make a living. They are about to
be joined by Britain's fishermen - for whom crippling fuel
costs come on top of the ruin wreaked by EU fisheries
policies.
These groups have certain things in common. They all
have plenty of time to brood on their misfortunes - on
the tractor, in the lorry cab, at sea. They hold robust
opinions - more tabloid and talk-radio than broadsheet
and Radio 4 - but (unlike taxi drivers who also fit this
stereotype) they have few opportunities to express
them.
Margaret Thatcher may have been their kind of
politician, but neither her government nor any other in
recent memory has actually done anything to help
them, and the present one has dismissed their
interests completely. They are predominantly white,
male, middle-aged, in work, home-owning and in
normal circumstances law-abiding, which means that
they do not fall into any of the categories at which
Labour ministers target their heart-on-the-sleeve
concern. In modern political parlance, these people
really are "the excluded".
And the political elite now hates them for their
rat-in-a-corner attempt to fight back. The Government
hates them because it was comprehensively humiliated
by them in September and dropped 17 points in the
opinion polls. Trade unionists seem to hate the
protesters because, in the view of leaders such as John
Edmunds and Bill Morris, the union movement owns a
monopoly on the right to cripple the economy by direct
action, and because the police did not wade in against
fuel protesters as they once did against pickets at
Grunwick and Brampton colliery. The old Left hates Mr
Handley's campaigners because they represent the
kulaks and the bourgeoisie who stand in the way of
revolutions. Self-important commentators such as Polly
Toynbee of the Guardian hate them because their
coarse mode of expression suddenly usurped all
normal channels of influence and debate.
And yet the public was on their side by an
overwhelming majority. Reporters could find almost no
one, however far back in a petrol queue, who was
genuinely angry at the protesters. Easily convinced
that the level of fuel tax was indeed a scandal, the
public recognised the protesters as ordinary citizens
such as themselves, rather than scary anarchists such
as the anti-globalisation rioters. Most seemed
untroubled by the logical difficulty of both supporting
the aim of the protest and not wishing the Government
to give in to it. The unspoken consensus seemed to be
that this conundrum was for the Government to solve
by allowing an interval to pass, then offering a suitable
concession.
But apparently that is not to be - either because
Gordon Brown simply refuses to cut fuel tax, or
because Tony Blair thinks he can reverse the damage
done to him in September. If the Government is
determined to baton-charge the blockades, we are
entering a new game. The protest will take longer to
bite, because public services and retail chains are
better prepared. Petrol queues will be more irksome on
dark, wet November evenings. The broken-down rail
network cannot relieve the strain.
There are signs of faction splits among protesters,
those who blockaded the Stanlow refinery having
declared that they want nothing to do with Mr Handley.
The Government has only to hold its posture for three
or four days to make the protest look pointlessly
anti-social. A fickle public will swiftly swing to the
Mirror's view that Mr Handley "must be stopped".
Or will it? The floods and the state of the railways have
served only to increase public scepticism about the
Government's capacity to act decisively in a crisis.
There is still huge support for the basic cause of
cheaper fuel. The fuel campaigners are still our
neighbours, not enemies of the state. And however
firm-jawed Jack Straw may be, senior police officers
are extremely reluctant to order their men to suppress
a non-violent protest that enjoys widespread public
backing. For want of the promise of a token fuel tax cut
in next week's pre-Budget statement, the Government
may be heading for another catastrophic confrontation.
It should remember that rat bites can sometimes be
fatal.
Happiness is a warm L1011
Guest
Posts: n/a
Personally, I love the bumper sticker
'Don't steal - The Government hates competition'
so true!
I do not have the option of public transport (such as it is currently), though option may be a misnomer. I have to drive to work, even when the trains and buses are running properly. Believe me, I would love to ‘let the train take the strain’, unfortunately where I work is not near a station, nor on a bus route. This is not the fifties where people worked a bus or train ride away, the majority of employed people now travel over 10 miles to work.
Like others, I would not object to paying higher taxes - even on petrol, if I thought that these were being spent more effectively. Unfortunately, I see waste, mismanagement and sprendthrift policies with public funds. Never mind the enormous subsidies and grants that are siphoned from lottery monies, for vanity driven projects.
To be told that, if the petrol tax is reduced even by a few pence per litre, hospitals, schools and other public services will be brought to disarray is a cynical, manipulative exercise by Ministers (including Tone Blah Blah). If they were convinced that they would win or lose the next election by reducing petrol tax by 10p, 15p or even 20p per litre - it would be done. I'm fully aware that the Treasury use my taxes any way they deem is appropriate, just wish they wouldn't pretend that high fuel taxes are helping the environment. High fuel taxes are just another revenue generating instrument.
Just a point, one reason why farmers should enjoy a little more favourable treatment is that without them we could not survive – we would not be able to import all our food.
The current public unrest is less to do with high petrol tax, and more with the dissatisfaction at the way in which the English have been sidelined as an irrelevance and annoyance to the smooth running of Tone's kingdom. How dare we question his appointments, his courtiers, his policies - Lese-majesty indeed. We are, after all, his 'people'.
'Don't steal - The Government hates competition'
so true!
I do not have the option of public transport (such as it is currently), though option may be a misnomer. I have to drive to work, even when the trains and buses are running properly. Believe me, I would love to ‘let the train take the strain’, unfortunately where I work is not near a station, nor on a bus route. This is not the fifties where people worked a bus or train ride away, the majority of employed people now travel over 10 miles to work.
Like others, I would not object to paying higher taxes - even on petrol, if I thought that these were being spent more effectively. Unfortunately, I see waste, mismanagement and sprendthrift policies with public funds. Never mind the enormous subsidies and grants that are siphoned from lottery monies, for vanity driven projects.
To be told that, if the petrol tax is reduced even by a few pence per litre, hospitals, schools and other public services will be brought to disarray is a cynical, manipulative exercise by Ministers (including Tone Blah Blah). If they were convinced that they would win or lose the next election by reducing petrol tax by 10p, 15p or even 20p per litre - it would be done. I'm fully aware that the Treasury use my taxes any way they deem is appropriate, just wish they wouldn't pretend that high fuel taxes are helping the environment. High fuel taxes are just another revenue generating instrument.
Just a point, one reason why farmers should enjoy a little more favourable treatment is that without them we could not survive – we would not be able to import all our food.
The current public unrest is less to do with high petrol tax, and more with the dissatisfaction at the way in which the English have been sidelined as an irrelevance and annoyance to the smooth running of Tone's kingdom. How dare we question his appointments, his courtiers, his policies - Lese-majesty indeed. We are, after all, his 'people'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Velvet
Better still why don't we continue subsidising the water industry, after all that's as important to life as food? Electricity is also almost as important to modern living, why not subsidise that? Why stop at the farmers? Subsidise the whole food supply chain, hauliers, warehouses, supermarkets, the lot.
The current public unrest is less to do with high petrol tax, and more with the dissatisfaction at the way in which the English have been sidelined as an irrelevance and annoyance to the smooth running of Tone's kingdom. How dare we question his appointments, his courtiers, his policies - Lese-majesty indeed. We are, after all, his 'people'.
The current public unrest is orchestrated by a few highly-motivated individuals, hijacking a single issue to achieve their political ends. The long dark shadow of the BNP and other associated troublemakers is also present in many of these 'peaceful protests'. They are just as bad as the trade unions and the way they behaved before Thatcher broke them.
Of course, Thatcher also operated the original autocratic 'presidential' government, more so than Blair. Did you have a similar problem with her? I doubt it, because you sound to me like one of the hard core of Mail/Telegraph readers who just cannot stand the fact that a Labour government is in power and running the country successfully. No rational arguments or successes of the administration will sway you, you hate it just because it's Labour. Full stop. The old chestnut of Labour wrecking the economy has been completely disproved, they're running it better than the bungling Tories ever could, so this autocratic policed-state facist-type not-listening stuff is the latest Daily Mail line. A couple of years ago the very same rag was accusing Labour of making too much use of public opinion contact groups to determine policy, now suddenly they're not listening??? An about face indeed.
Admit it, Labour are doing well. Not perfect, mind you, nobody's perfect, but they're the best government we've had for fifty years.
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 03 November 2000).]
Better still why don't we continue subsidising the water industry, after all that's as important to life as food? Electricity is also almost as important to modern living, why not subsidise that? Why stop at the farmers? Subsidise the whole food supply chain, hauliers, warehouses, supermarkets, the lot.
The current public unrest is less to do with high petrol tax, and more with the dissatisfaction at the way in which the English have been sidelined as an irrelevance and annoyance to the smooth running of Tone's kingdom. How dare we question his appointments, his courtiers, his policies - Lese-majesty indeed. We are, after all, his 'people'.
The current public unrest is orchestrated by a few highly-motivated individuals, hijacking a single issue to achieve their political ends. The long dark shadow of the BNP and other associated troublemakers is also present in many of these 'peaceful protests'. They are just as bad as the trade unions and the way they behaved before Thatcher broke them.
Of course, Thatcher also operated the original autocratic 'presidential' government, more so than Blair. Did you have a similar problem with her? I doubt it, because you sound to me like one of the hard core of Mail/Telegraph readers who just cannot stand the fact that a Labour government is in power and running the country successfully. No rational arguments or successes of the administration will sway you, you hate it just because it's Labour. Full stop. The old chestnut of Labour wrecking the economy has been completely disproved, they're running it better than the bungling Tories ever could, so this autocratic policed-state facist-type not-listening stuff is the latest Daily Mail line. A couple of years ago the very same rag was accusing Labour of making too much use of public opinion contact groups to determine policy, now suddenly they're not listening??? An about face indeed.
Admit it, Labour are doing well. Not perfect, mind you, nobody's perfect, but they're the best government we've had for fifty years.
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 03 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scandals,
Dome,
Fuel Crisis,
Oh yea great record so far.
If you're going to price people off the roads you need to give them a decent alternative.
Trains - 'nuf said.
Buses - ever tried to get one outside a town?
This country has geared its future economy around the private motorist system and has wound down public transport for the last 50 years. Beeching ring a bell?
If you're going to tax the motorist to that level you should put the money into an alternative infrastructure. Not health or pensions. These should have been looked after with income tax. But that will lose votes at an election - wouldn't it... How to mismanage an economy.
If you think there's a transport crisis now, just wait another year!
Anyway, what has this got to do with aviation?
[This message has been edited by buck-rogers (edited 03 November 2000).]
Dome,
Fuel Crisis,
Oh yea great record so far.
If you're going to price people off the roads you need to give them a decent alternative.
Trains - 'nuf said.
Buses - ever tried to get one outside a town?
This country has geared its future economy around the private motorist system and has wound down public transport for the last 50 years. Beeching ring a bell?
If you're going to tax the motorist to that level you should put the money into an alternative infrastructure. Not health or pensions. These should have been looked after with income tax. But that will lose votes at an election - wouldn't it... How to mismanage an economy.
If you think there's a transport crisis now, just wait another year!
Anyway, what has this got to do with aviation?
[This message has been edited by buck-rogers (edited 03 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
As to whether Labour has done a good job depends on your point of view and whether you have benefited from it.
My opinion of events is as valid as any of the posters here; though 'favourable treatment' does not necessarily translate into 'susidising all and sundry'.
As to whether the British public feel this government has done a good job will be reflected at the next election.
I do not subscribe to the view that they have been the best government since the war; however, nor do I believe that another party would have done it either differently or more effectively, given the size of the majority.
Foghorn, just because you disagree with what I posted doesn't mean you can then assume that you know what I think or believe in politically. To describe me as you did says more about your beliefs than mine. I don't hate Labour, I just don't approve of what's been happening recently.
Still since this is degenerating into personal attacks, I think I'll withdraw from the arena.
My opinion of events is as valid as any of the posters here; though 'favourable treatment' does not necessarily translate into 'susidising all and sundry'.
As to whether the British public feel this government has done a good job will be reflected at the next election.
I do not subscribe to the view that they have been the best government since the war; however, nor do I believe that another party would have done it either differently or more effectively, given the size of the majority.
Foghorn, just because you disagree with what I posted doesn't mean you can then assume that you know what I think or believe in politically. To describe me as you did says more about your beliefs than mine. I don't hate Labour, I just don't approve of what's been happening recently.
Still since this is degenerating into personal attacks, I think I'll withdraw from the arena.