Chief Secretary to the Treasury can't add up

StewartR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, I guess it's no surprise really, but here's proof if you ever wanted it that you can hold an important position in the financial engine-room of our government whilst having zero numeracy skills.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29924710 - "Danny Alexander to call for fuel price cut"

Basically he's saying that oil prices have come down quite a lot recently, but petrol prices at the pump haven't. Oil has fallen from $115 a barrel in June to $84 now, a drop of 27%. But the average price of a litre of unleaded has only fallen from 131.7p to 124.22p, a drop of only 5.7%. So obviously the oil companies are ripping us off.

Hmm. Do the sums, Danny. Nearly all the numbers you need are in that BBC article.

In June, £1 got you $1.7165, so that $115 barrel of oil was £67.00. Now, £1 = $1.598, so the $84 barrel of oil is £52.57. And the fall in oil prices, in £ terms, is only 21.5%.

Also, petrol prices contain both VAT and 57.95p per litre fuel duty. So at 131.7p per litre, that's 109.75p without VAT, and it's 51.80p without VAT and fuel duty. At 124.22p per litre, that's 103.52p without VAT, and it's 45.57p without VAT and fuel duty. So the price that the oil companies actually have control over has fallen from 51.80p to 45.57p, a fall of 12.0%.

That doesn't make such a good headline, does it? Oil price down 27%, petrol price down 5.7% - that sounds like a rip-off. Oil price down 21%, petrol price down 12% - not so bad.

And of that 45.57p per litre that the oil companies actually have some control over, how much of that goes on the raw material itself? Surely a certain percentage is the cost of refining it, transporting it, marketing it, retailing it, and making a profit - and that won't come down just because the price of the raw material comes down. If the overheads account for 15p per litre, say (a number I just made up), then it works out that the reduction in the oil price has fed through almost exactly into the reduction in the pump price.

I don't hold any beef for the oil companies, I should say. But it just irritates me to see nonsense like this. Danny Alexander hopes to get some political mileage out of his speech, but it's basically either lies or incompetence. Still, only 6 months and the election will be behind us.
 
Last edited:
:agree::ty:

Good post, Stewart!

Of course our PPE graduate politicians like Mr Alexander [St Anne's Oxford] are innumerate, or choose to be. Just as they misunderstand or affect to misunderstand, all science, whether it is climatology, medicine or engineering.

They never want to let the truth get in the way of an opportune sound bite!

Except that funnily enough, the truth is beginning to get in the way of all their ambitions!

Janet Daley [of all people] wrote a superb article in last Sunday's Telegraph about the electoral disconnect and this sort of transparent bullshine is a considerable part of their problem.
 
It amazes me that people are still surprised that politicians are incompetent lairs I thought that that was a prerequisite for the job.

tarric
 
In fairness though, DA seems to be commenting on the mismatch in speed in which increases and decreases in crude price are reflected at the pumps. It's the article that delves into the figures without really addressing DA's point. Plus the article makes no mention of the effect of futures buying in the wholesale market.

Of course, if he was really serious about getting fuel prices down he'd either cut the duty or start pushing fracking in the UK.
 
Back
Top