Safe Speed Forums

It would appear that, due to the unsustainable levels of fuel prices, protests are likely to take place 6am next Wednesday if tax cuts don't take place.

A friend of mine indicates that the contingency this time around will mean that the British Army are likely to be deployed (driving tankers etc). It would also appear that the use of the terrorism act will prevent protestors from actually blockading refineries etc.

IMO, if this protest does go ahead, then it could well get ugly, it will be interesting to see who'll break first. Let's hope the authorities don't start getting heavy handed.

I personally doubt we will expierence any ill-effects and the protest will not be successful. They have tried several times recently to 'blockade' the terminals and each time have failed. The only reason it succeeded in 2000 was because it coincided with a pay dispute by a lot of tanker drivers. This blockade gave them a bloody good excuse not to bother driving and heap more pressure on their employers. They gave the excuse that if they were to drive around somebody may drop a brick of a bridge etc. I can understand that fear, but I would say it was very unlikely(other then a random incident) that the scum who throw rocks at trucks would do such a thing and target the drivers of the tankers, afterall it's not them who set the prices!

Another reason why it will fail is because I don't think their is as much public support this time round. Most people are aware that the rising prices are due to world events, and not this time the fault of the government. Yes the government are getting a bit of a windfall from increased VAT reciepts, and maybe a small cut in duty should happen. But what's that going to mean - a 2 or maybe 3p cut? Fuel will still be over 90p a litre.

I do have some sympathy with haulage operators that maybe tied to contracts or whatever and their is a valid argument for blue diesel with reduced duty to be implemented. However, I'm not sure I fully support a cut for the public - motoring is historically cheap at the moment so I can't see why a cut in duty over and above the difference in VAT payments is justified. I think Europe is catching us up as well, I paid E1.35 per litre in France. Just in case anyones wondering I will cover 10k in my car this year, rather then a 'pop to the shops once a week' motorist that will not notice the increase.

During the last protest my wife (nurse) were being given ration cards so they could fill up at designated filling stations. The blockade ended prior to implementation.

Just got to fill up the two cars and three bikes jus in case.

As for me.....I am quite happy working from home is required.

I get my fuel fully funded from the company (for which I pay benefit tax) But I fully support the protest

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Whilst world events may indeed be a causation factor for the increases, the Government is still taking 85 pence in every pound taken at the tills. The Government can afford a decrease for the very reasons you've already mentioned.

I'm afraid regardless of world events (some of which have been caused by this Government, Iraq etc), the Government should act and act fast.

The current tax on fuel is 66.7% not 85%. At the time of the 2000 fuel protest the tax was 77%.

With tax having been reduced by just over 10% it does mean that the current high prices are down to the problems worldwide rather than just a UK problem.

Interestingly, Italy, Denmark, France and Germany all have tax levels of over 60% on fuel.

If the protest starts, their will only one loser, the Goverment of any country would be foolish in the extreme to concede anything while being threatened and held to ransom - who would be next in line........

Sorry, but that's just the proportion of the retail price that consists of tax. The tax is actually much higher. I'm not up to date on the real figures, but by way of example if fuel cost a pound a litre but was only 25p pre-tax then tax would be 300%. But it would still only make up 3/4 of the cost when we fill our tanks up.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Gatsobait

The previous poster suggested 85p in the pound went to the Goverment, that would be 85%.

Changing the interpretation will produce different figures agreed but the fact is that 66.7% of the cost of fuel is tax.

The amount of taxation on fuel as a percentage related to the original cost is obviously about 200%. Not sure what difference the distinction really makes to my reply to the original post

The timing is wrong. If we were within 6 to 9 months of a General Election it would be a different matter, but with many years of B'liar still to come (or his successor), the gov't have plenty of time to overcome any difficulties caused by this, so they won't have to give in.
The only thing which just might have an influence would be a hike in inflation causing bank rate to have to increase which could de-value the pound. Even so, that would probably be tolerated until the worldwide fuel situation stabilises, if it does.

Sorry Herbie, I should have explained that better. I didn't mean to sound as if I was arguing your 2/3 figure for the proportion of tax in the price of fuel. As I said, I'm not up to date and haven't checked, so I'm in no position to disupute it. I'm prepared to believe it because it sounds about right - 2/3, 3/4, anywhere around that ball park seems a realistic number.

The distinction, and forgive me for being picky here, is that phrasing it as "the current tax on fuel is 66.7%" gives the impression that this is the rate of taxation in the same way we understand the rate of VAT to be 17.5%. The true rate of tax/duty is much higher than the proportion of it in the price at the pumps.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

In my opinion the last fuel protests were ill-conceived. Blockading refineries (or anything else) is stupid. Public support inevitably dwindles over time allowing the politicians and the media to villify the protesters as enemies of the state.

What would be so much more sensible is to draw the names of petrol retailers from a hat and boycott half of them (or just pick the biggest 2 or three). The 'general public' can participate in this protest without grossly inconveniencing themselves. Everything that needs fuel can still get it and the CEOs of Tesco, Shell and BP are much more efficient at bending the ear of government.

Edit: The fundamental problem, of course, is that the price of oil is set by speculators hell-bent on funding their new yacht in the Cayman Islands and has little or nothing to do with supply or demand.

We REALLY need to know the size of the tax windfall from North Sea Oil revenues that has arisen due to the elevated international price of oil.

I believe that it's big and also that the government must give some of it back to the people by reducing the tax take on retail vehicle fuels.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I was all for the protests, but didn't fully support the manner of protest. IMO the blockade wasn't a good idea. I think it had been seen in France and it was assumed it would work just as well here... but I feel it doesn't quite sit with the normal British way of doing things. Picket terminals and refineries by all means, but be careful not to actually prevent deliveries. Roadside protests and M4 style go-slows, perhaps civil obedience type protests similar to those of the Americans against the obsolete 55mph limit, all sorts of options were and are available that wouldn't risk alienating the public but the blockade seems to be the weapon of choice. Even the old "don't buy fuel on Wednesdays" (or whatever it was) idea, as flawed as it was, was better - if you can get thirty million voters all doing the same thing it's going to get the attention of any politician.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

We should all fear a government response to a serious fuel shortage which could be another blanket 50 mph limit on all roads. They did this in late 1973/early 1974 and it was dreadful then. Imagine how much worse it would be this time with the electronic detection equipment available.
Don't think that this spiteful government wouldn't do it to spite the protesters and turn our opinions in favour of the 'spin-ridden' gov't.

That was back in the day when optimum fuel efficiency was at 50mph

Now it is significantly higher due modern engine design and aerodylamics.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Here you go, fair enough 85% was a figure plucked from a fuel protest site but it is closer to that figure than you think. Remember, VAT is paid on the non duty element. Below however is a report in 2005. The hikes have gone up since then so adjust for that when you read it. If anyone has figures for 2005 then please post them.

You will notice that the duty on the fuel since 1997 has leapt quite significantly.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn55.pdf

Do you honestly think they would let the logic of aerodynamics interfere with politics? One thing I am sure of is that if they did put a blanket 50 mph limit on all roads, including m'ways, the best we would ever get would be an increase to 60 on m'ways and DC's once some normality. returned with the NSL apart from that staying at 50.
Remember, the 60 NSL came about after that 50 mph blanket period when instead of returning to a 70 mph NSL on single carriageways, only DC's and m'ways returned to 70.
It's a sobering thought, but the 'speed-kills' freaks would love nothing more, as would the cash-collectors/pratnerships whose revenues would increase. More disquals would reduce congestion, slower = safer(oh, yeah!) so the safety lobby would be happy.
Just think about it a bit.

Government revenue from UK oil and gas production statistics here.

2004/05 actual = £5.2Bn. 2005/06 forecast = £7.1Bn. Not sure what oil price assumptions are incorporated but AIUI, petroleum revenue tax is % of profits from oil and gas exploration so any marginal increase in oil price over break-even cost of production should be 100% marginal profit.

johno 1066

The figure of 67.7% of the price you pay at the pump being Tax is current based on a price of 90p a litre. This was laid out in detail on the BBC news site on Monday or Tuesday.


Duty = 47.1p

Product = 23.2p


Retailer/Delivery = 6.3p

Vat = 13.4p



BBC Link

there isn't just duty and VAT on fuel, don't forget that the crude was subject to "energy Tax". They worked it out on 5Live last week, that when fuel was 86ppl (them were the days) that Mr G Brown esq snaffled 70 pence per litre.

I'm all for the protests and hope they get nasty.

I can imagine the government lowering speed limits using a petrol crisis as justification again. You only have to see the cuts in the NHS at the moment, which came to light just after the general election (of course!).

Hurricane Katrina has had an affect on oil prices, nobody argues that, and that wasn't the governments fault. We cannot say the same for the war with Iraq. That was a man made disaster that continues to cause loss of life and ill-feeling.

The government are raking petrol tax revenue in. I remember last year when I went to a rural petrol station in the mountains of Gran Canaria, an island which must import all of its fuel, and diesel cost the equivalent of 35p per litre. That proves it. Diesel in Britain at that time was in the high seventies I think.