Fuel Price Petition
Posted by: djftw on 09 June 2008
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
quote:
Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
I got my watch at the gas station with tokens.
"look I can afford expensive petrol"
If unlike Gianluigi you can't afford expensive petrol, or indeed you just think that the price of petrol and utilities in the UK are ridiculous and think the government should be doing something other than cashing in on it then you might want to take a look at/sign this.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Lowerduty30/Cue all the environmentalists telling me I'm complicit in us all going to hell on a turbo-charged hand cart!
Posted on: 12 June 2008 by Laurie Saunders
Oh good God not this again... Fine, I think you're right, therefore you should go out tomorrow and get yourself spayed.
Eh?....(do you mean "speyed"?)
BTW I don`t believe in God
Are you accusing me of hypocrisy?...don`t judge others by your own standards....
laurie
Posted on: 12 June 2008 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S1:
Nah...all part of the pre-launch hype about how delicate LPs are etc. First they rubbed a CD with a Brillo pad, then they put jam on it...and it still played...etc.
I remember that! I was 6 IIRC. I can also remember the player was some kind of door-loading (like a cassette deck) silver beast (Technics or NEC prototype???) and they also showed the Bee Gees' "Spirits having flown", in a cardboard sleeve.
How many CDs does a barrel of oil make?
Luckily, some of us don't WANT kids. I'm certainly NOT interested. Plus they're the most environmentally unfriendly thing to have. Nature WILL find a way of culling us.
As for price of driving, deal with it. Some of us have no choice BUT to use public transport - despite how shocking it is.
Posted on: 12 June 2008 by djftw
quote:
Eh?....(do you mean "speyed"?)
No, I mean spayed, check the OED. Poor choice of word actually as I have no idea whether you are male or female, I should have used Neuter.
quote:
BTW I don`t believe in God
I don't really care, my exclamation doesn't require you (or indeed me) to! However, if you are an ardent Dawkinist I will happily use "Oh good Science" when in your presence in the future.
quote:
Are you accusing me of hypocrisy?
Not at all, I was acknowledging the brilliance of your understanding of the final solution to the human problem and suggesting that you set a good example for the rest of us!
Posted on: 12 June 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S1:
quote:
may be an odd questions, but why did anybody think I might want to spread jam on my CDs?
They have seen you eat.
.....
Steve
Posted on: 15 June 2008 by Willy
Fuel costs for us country dwellers is an issue. Last month our household petrol bill was £350. There is no public transport alternative. In winter out monthly oil/logs/electricity bill would be something similar (at current prices). Whilst I could undoubtly find other things to spend that on I accept it as a cost of living here.
Of course all this would be less of a burden if I wasn't having to pay substantially more into my pension as a result of Brown's tax raid, something which much of the un-civil service on their (largely free) final salary pensions are unaffected by. That annoys me, especially in view of the ever decreasing standards of service they deliver.
Willy.
Posted on: 15 June 2008 by u5227470736789439
There is no way that fuel taxes are going to be cut in UK or Europe for that matter. In UK the government has already burdened the taxpayer with a massive amount of public debt, even if the figures are neatly disguised with the PFI route.
The tax has to pay for this has to come from somewhere.
So there will be a rebalancing of rural property values in the medium term, because of the increasing costs of living in the country and working in a town. This may actually be of benefit to rural youngsters who find they can no longer afford to live where they were brought up, and thus the people who constitute the rural workforce, who are going to be increasingly valued for agricultural purposes in the future, may well once again be able to live closer their work.
The phenomenon of flight from the land of labour has been going on for decades, and the result is that for much seasonal agricultural work we have in recent times relied on immigrant labour, but this may not go on indefinitely as the home countries of these workers become stronger economically.
Though the oil-price-rise has been sudden the changes it brings will be slower, but no less inevitable for all that.
George
Posted on: 15 June 2008 by 555
I agree a cut seems very unlikely, but changes in the UK are possible.
There is a lot of pressure for a differential on this tax for remote areas & islands,
which already happens in other EU countries.
Posted on: 15 June 2008 by u5227470736789439
Do these remote areas vote Labour, John, or else you have no chance till the next election, I would think.
Brown is not very charitable towards those who did not and would not vote for his Party, I suspect.
I grew up in the country, and I do understand the problems. Our nearest bus [stop] was three miles away, so not much option there!
George
Posted on: 15 June 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Brown is not very charitable towards those who did not and would not vote for his Party, I suspect.
Ah that's why he always takes from me and gives absolute zero or less in return. When is he going to quit or has he even less honour than ability? I thought Blair was a dead loss, but Brown ....
He became PM because of his ambition in that direction and I can think of no worse reason for having him in that position.
Trouble is the others are
probably as bad.
Optimistically yours, Rotf
Posted on: 15 June 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Rotf,
I actually disagree with you in a minor detail. He has less ability than humour, but he is there for a couple of years and really he could do immense damage in that time.
I would love to see the Lib-dems and the Tories make Manifesto commitments based largely on abolishing laws rather than infesting us with new ones, set about implementing the laws that are sensible, and also sacking Civil Servants [loosing Pension Rights] for being careless with our personal data that this forsaken government seems to think it must store on each and every single one of us. Useless, careless, incompetent wasters of good oxygen and carbon that most of them are ...
George
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by djftw
quote:
I would love to see the Lib-dems and the Tories make Manifesto commitments based largely on abolishing laws rather than infesting us with new ones, set about implementing the laws that are sensible, and also sacking Civil Servants [loosing Pension Rights] for being careless with our personal data that this forsaken government seems to think it must store on each and every single one of us. Useless, careless, incompetent wasters of good oxygen and carbon that most of them are ...
Funnily enough more or less exactly what I was pushing when we (CFS) were producing policy documents to let "call me Dave" know what young Tories think.
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Useless, careless, incompetent wasters of good oxygen and carbon that most of them are ...
Dear George
I agree that is a fair description of most politicians.
I think the remaining few are far worse.
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by JamieWednesday
With respect to the strike, I notice Unite say that the offer to the drivers would 'only' move their pay from £32,000 to £36,000 p.a. and they have concerns over Shell's market leadng position in determining future pay reviews.
Well a 12.5% rise in basic pay doesn't seem so bad to me...(I got a little over 3% this year by comparison, the top band in my firm, which made record profit last year). And that sure as hell ain't gonna help the price of fuel to come down!
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by djftw
A union being unreasonable, what a shock... Shouldn't have wasted my time with this whole University business, should have taken a tanker driving course instead, I'd be more than happy driving about for 36k, just get an inverter and set up my hi-fi in the cab!!!
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
Are you accusing me of hypocrisy?
Not at all, I was acknowledging the brilliance of your understanding of the final solution to the human problem and suggesting that you set a good example for the rest of us![/QUOTE]
Please explain
Laurie
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
Originally posted by Garfield:
This has been an interesting thread to read and quite quite fascinating in the way the argument has developed from an invitation to sign a fuel price petition to attacks on motorists and rural home owners. I have some observations:
Cars: The motorist is an easy target for the government, environmentalists and those resident on the moral high ground. It is very easy to forget that many motorists made their choice of transport a number of years ago in different economic circumstances. I think that it is unreasonable that they are penalised and vilified for that choice. The reality is that to remedy that choice in light of the current economic environment is not always a financially viable option.
Houses: The rural home owner is an easy target for local government, environmentalists and residents of the moral high ground. Many home owners have been in their abodes for a number of years and the decision to live in a rural area for example, would have been taken in different economic circumstances. As with the motorist, I think that it is unreasonable that the rural home owner is vilified and penalised for that choice. As with the choice of car issue above, to remedy the choice of where you live is not always a viable financial option in the current economic environment - unless of course the Credit Crunch is a figment of our imaginations...
Children: There are people who make the life choice not to have children. Interestingly the choice to not have children is very much an environmentally friendly action and as such should be recognised, indeed dare I say, rewarded? Unfortunately this life choice is not recognised by the government or by those who by dint of parenthood are resident on the moral high ground. The childless (by choice) do not mind paying for the house they live in and car they drive, but to be expected to pay for other people's kids via taxation and council tax is unacceptable.
In summary, I think it is very easy to condemn the motorist or the rural home owner for their choices, but I would argue that the choice (or accident) of parenthood is far more irresponsible and costs the taxpayer and the environment much, much more in real terms.
I now await the condemnation of the righteous
Garfield
On Cars and Rural living..folk indeed did make their choices in different economic circumstances....no less than, say, those who bought shares in Northern Rock
I`m afraid I could suggest lack of forsight...or simply the (bad) luck of the draw..whichever...people have to adapt to circumstances as they develop. The point I have been making is that nobody is entitled to be protected from change
Regarding children.......the world certainly does not need any more of them, so they must be viewed as a form of self indulgence...and costed appropriately. I know a father of four who regularly rants about "selfish rich" and the starving kids in the third world, without realising that he is one of the main culprits
laurie
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by Steve S1
quote:
I know a father of four who regularly rants about "selfish rich" and the starving kids in the third world, without realising that he is one of the main culprits
Go and shake that man's hand. His kids will be paying for what ever kind of pension is left for you.
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by 555
quote:
Well a 12.5% rise in basic pay doesn't seem so bad to me...
Shell tanker drivers today earn a basic wage of just under £32,000 per year for a 48-hour working week. In 1992, a typical tanker driver directly employed by Shell earned approximately £32,000 per year for a 37-hour week. These tanker drivers haven't had a pay rise in five years. How many pay rises have you had in the last five years Jamie?
quote:
A union being unreasonable, what a shock...
Shell's board members received an average 16% increase in their pay last year, whereas Shell's poor old managers have only recieved 15%. The privaliged few being hypocritical/greedy, & people bleeting/condeming when they haven't bothered to find out the facts, no shock.
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse
I understand that the drivers agreed to a fix of basic pay in 1992, choosing to switch to a deal where overtime added greater incentives. Thy made that choice then, and they were rewarded by consistently rising real 'pay packet' rises (which include overtime).
To complain that the basic was fixed is only part of the tale.
Just depends who you believe eh, or what newspaper you read.
Bruce
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by 555
I don't think they agreed exactly Bruce, as Shell's tanker drivers were 'out-sourced' to Hoyer. Accepting poorer conditions of employment, rather than losing their job, is closer to what happened. In fact they have seen their pay cut, & this has led to a worsening of their pension provision.
The tanker driver's current claim would not even restore their relative pay position to the level it was fifteen years ago.
Who to believe is always an interesting question, but perhaps the question should be who has the most to gain by telling porkies?!
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S1:
quote:
I know a father of four who regularly rants about "selfish rich" and the starving kids in the third world, without realising that he is one of the main culprits
Go and shake that man's hand. His kids will be paying for what ever kind of pension is left for you.
Will they pay for mine too - that's good of them. Do I get that in addition to the one I've paid in for, for the last 30 years of hard slog? (Insert melancholy violin here) Getting up all hours of the night to slave away for the IT industry, working my fingers to the bone ... and for what to see Gordon squander it like Thatcher before him. Council tax seems a black hole to me - does anybody see it being spent on anything useful? Bring back the Pole tax and extend it to other eastern European migration too - just make me exempt, it's not much to ask. (End of melancholy violin).
This is always an argument that has no right answer. When it comes down to it, I'd like to
teach the world to sing in perfect harmony see everybody paid fairly and an end to overpaid fat-cats. I wish we were energy self sufficient and didn't have to rely on Shell and their like. Anyway, I think Shell could easily afford to pay Hoyer some more wonga on condition it was passed on to the workers. If it can't do that out of existing profits then just don't pay the board members for a couple of years, what could they do: go on strike? Who'd notice. It's so easy.
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 16 June 2008 by Steve S1
quote:
Will they pay for mine too - that's good of them. Do I get that in addition to the one I've paid in for, for the last 30 years of hard slog?
Takes out onion.
You haven't got enough left to fund pensions after all your purchases.
Seriously, your (non-private) pension contributions are not for you - current NI pays for today's wrinklies, not you.
Steve
Posted on: 17 June 2008 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S1:
Go and shake that man's hand. His kids will be paying for what ever kind of pension is left for you.
Unfortunately, that is the same old tired, misconcieved argument that is regurly wheeled out whenever the population issue is raised...it goes along the lines "we need more kids to pay the pensions of the older folk who have retired"
Well, that is akin to curing a hangover by getting drunk. What you describe is a fundamental flaw in the design of the pension system, which does not "save" payments into the fund. A serious rethink of the structure of pension schemes is required
laurie
Posted on: 17 June 2008 by Steve S1
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S1:
Go and shake that man's hand. His kids will be paying for what ever kind of pension is left for you.
Unfortunately, that is the same old tired, misconcieved argument that is regurly wheeled out whenever the population issue is raised...it goes along the lines "we need more kids to pay the pensions of the older folk who have retired"
Well, that is akin to curing a hangover by getting drunk. What you describe is a fundamental flaw in the design of the pension system, which does not "save" payments into the fund. A serious rethink of the structure of pension schemes is required
laurie
Sorry Laurie,
Here is another "tired" argument.
Greater numbers of elderly = much more money needed.
Reduced number of eligible tax payers = even less money available to meet increased demand.
If you have a less tired solution. I'll be your business partner, we should then clean up. The serious re-think has to involve compulsory contribution from somewhere.
Steve
The reason it's a tired argument, is because it's still waiting to learn how gravity might defied, and a solution that does not involve reduced pensions.
Posted on: 17 June 2008 by Steve S1
*
