Oil prices set to rise again - feeling the pinch?

srichards said:
If a fuel tax stabiliser is introduced then where is the money coming from to pay for it? The graduated VED hike is supposed to take effect this year as that was put off so I'd imagine that will be reintroduced which will affect those doing low mileages disproportionately more.

Those living in the rural idyll shouldn't moan so much. That's the price you pay for not living in a city. You have no bus service and you have to travel miles for shopping and work. Tough. Move if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

whats the VED hike?

not everyone lives in a rural idyll, some of us just travel a long way to work
 
The VED hike on the higher rate bands in the graduated system ie post march 2001 cars. They were going to whack up the higher bands K and up or J and up. There was a big outcry saying that mid range cars would be costing £400 a year in VED rather than the currrent £200 ish.

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/road-tax-2009-2010-and-2011-charges/231720

I'm not completely sure as I don't have a car new enough to be affected.
 
Last edited:
Take heart, all these taxes are helping places like Bristol get 'Cycle City' status - Bristol got £22 million Latest info on failed targets!
I'm sure all the delivery drivers, service engineers and the like will find this very encouraging ... anyone got a cycle ladder carry rack?
 
srichards said:
Those living in the rural idyll shouldn't moan so much. That's the price you pay for not living in a city. You have no bus service and you have to travel miles for shopping and work. Tough. Move if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Yeh right, if I could afford to buy a house on my own in the city near where I work I would have done by now. In fact if I could afford to rent and still have money left over I would.
 
Interestingly cooking oil has gone up to almost the same price of fuel..

(Sent from my HTC Desire using TP Forums)
 
Splog said:
I went to the pub to fill up with lager....... I was disgusted.....it worked out at about £6 a litre :eek:
Click to expand...

You think that's bad? Work out how much your printer ink is per litre :gag:

Just don't try drinking it :nono:
 
hashcake said:
I don't bother looking at the prices, I just notice that the fuel gauge doesn't go over to right as far as it use to...
Click to expand...

If you don't increase the ££ there's going to come a point where you put your normal amount in and don't make it off the forecourt :p

I usually fill up every day with Diesel, sometimes twice a day, I haven't had any work since last Thursday, filled up today and it's gone up 8p a litre :eek:

At this rate it'll be £1.50 a litre by the end of the month :thumbsdown:
 
wack61 said:
If you don't increase the ££ there's going to come a point where you put your normal amount in and don't make it off the forecourt :p
Click to expand...

When the day comes that £30 wont allow me to pull of the forecourt, I won't own a car :P

Out of curiosity, the other day, with the petrol warning light on (I had done a fair few miles with it on), I put a fivers worth of petrol in the car.
Four miles of careful driving and the bloody warning light came on again, just goes to show a fiver doesn't get you far.
My mileage is quite low and on average I put £30 and that lasts me on average a week.
If I had to spend the amount of money some of you do on fuel, I'd consider going back to a motorbike with a sidecar for my dog :D
 
our local garage hasn't got space for the .9 (well it did when under a quid a litre)

Yesterday 11pm, diesel 141p a litre
This morning 8am 142p a litre.

I guarantee no delivery between those times (of slightly more expensive diesel) , the money robbing [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
 
srichards said:
Those living in the rural idyll shouldn't moan so much. That's the price you pay for not living in a city. You have no bus service and you have to travel miles for shopping and work. Tough. Move if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Such wise words.

Now why haven't I thought of upping sticks and moving into the city where the equivalent sized house with 1/2 the size garden, no garage, no driveway will cost nigh on £80K more. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
Such wise words.

Now why haven't I thought of upping sticks and moving into the city where the equivalent sized house with 1/2 the size garden, no garage, no driveway will cost nigh on £80K more. :shrug:
Click to expand...
This, as I see it, is the real problem, and a problem that politicians (of all parties) don't seem to understand or want to understand.

In cities, people on low incomes can use public transport. In rural areas there isn't any, or at least if it does exist it's inadequate. Essential travel by road involves a lot more miles and people on low incomes can't afford the fuel, come to that, they often can't afford to run a car that's capable of covering the amount of miles needed.

And work, when people can get it, is often badly paid and seasonal if they work on the land - long hours and hard work in the summer, little or nothing in the winter, making public transport (and even 2 wheel drive cars) even less of an option.

But that doesn't stop highly paid politicians with no real understanding of the real world (and especially of the world outside London) telling us that cuts in services and pay is good for us. I don't think that we're likely to do an Egypt or a Libya here, and I certainly don't want that to happen, but I don't think that our political masters will wake up and smell the coffee unless they think that it might.
 
Voters are concentrated in metropolitan and urban areas. Rural populations are much smaller and can be largely ignored, without risking too much comeback at the next election.
 
neil_g said:
saw my first 140.9 for diesel this week :eek:

i dont know if youve all signed this - http://www.fairfueluk.com/ - dont know if it will actually help but cant hurt.
Click to expand...

Psh. You don't know what expensive fuel is darn sarf. :razz:

148.9 for diesel
142.9 for unleaded

We're hopefully getting a 5p/litre subsidy at some point in the future.
 
Lynton said:
Such wise words.

Now why haven't I thought of upping sticks and moving into the city where the equivalent sized house with 1/2 the size garden, no garage, no driveway will cost nigh on £80K more. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's a choice. There are tons of cheap houses if you move out of the south. If you want the space you have to live further out from a city centre. If you want to travel less then you have to live in a smaller place with less parking etc. That's life. You can't have everything you want if you can't afford it. Get a better a job, spend less money on things you don't need. I had to. Most of my friends have to. If you can't afford you can't have. Life isn't fair and never has been and never will be.

I think the fundamental problem is that the working population is too large to support the amount of work that actually needs doing unless you do something drastic like limit the working week to 35 hours and outlaw any overtime whatsoever. Then you'd find you could probably employ most of the unemployed (except the terminally useless). You'd still be left with the terminally useless that can't do anything and have a bad attitude. What do you do with all of those?

There isn't an easy solution or it would have been done. Bottom line is life will be harder for some people than others and that money or lack thereof will always reduce options.
 
srichards said:
It's a choice. There are tons of cheap houses if you move out of the south. If you want the space you have to live further out from a city centre. If you want to travel less then you have to live in a smaller place with less parking etc. That's life. You can't have everything you want if you can't afford it. Get a better a job, spend less money on things you don't need. I had to. Most of my friends have to. If you can't afford you can't have. Life isn't fair and never has been and never will be.

I think the fundamental problem is that the working population is too large to support the amount of work that actually needs doing unless you do something drastic like limit the working week to 35 hours and outlaw any overtime whatsoever. Then you'd find you could probably employ most of the unemployed (except the terminally useless). You'd still be left with the terminally useless that can't do anything and have a bad attitude. What do you do with all of those?

There isn't an easy solution or it would have been done. Bottom line is life will be harder for some people than others and that money or lack thereof will always reduce options.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that people who are either forced to live in rural areas or who choose to live in them shouldn't be able to drive because successive governments feel that they have a right to impose crippling taxes on fuel?
 
Garry Edwards said:
So are you saying that people who are either forced to live in rural areas or who choose to live in them shouldn't be able to drive because successive governments feel that they have a right to impose crippling taxes on fuel?
Click to expand...

They might have to consider giving up car ownership yes. The real cost of car ownership is relatively low and has been low since the 1980s. There is always car sharing or taxi sharing to consider if PT isn't effective. If it becomes likely that car ownership would fall in rural areas then PT becomes more economically viable. It is the increased car ownership that has made PT un-viable in the first place. It is a chicken and egg situation.

If fuel wasn't taxed heavily then they'd just screw it out of us another way though. It's only highly taxed because of climate change and modal shift and other such things. If the electorate decided they didn't believe in climate change and refused to have taxation associated with all this being green then they'd have to find something else to tax instead. If you don't want high fuel taxes then you have to vote for a party that doesn't believe in climate change.

Car ownership used to be a luxury for the well off. It might have to return that way which will please all the hair shirt sandal wearers.
 
suz

you speak the biggest load of *******s I have ever heard on here......... and that is an achievement, trust me.....
 
ok here's the facts for me......

we both live 15 miles away from work. Yes the fuel prices hurt and are noticed - but at the moment we are both fortunate enough in that they are not crippling........ I guess overpaying the mortgage helped out in previous years.

However your "solution" of moving to the city so no need to travel (and by the way public transport here is random, filthy and expensive - it costs me less to drive to norwich and back than a return fare, should the bus turn up) is shallow and ludicrous.

hmmm £80K more to put up with a load of noise and crap and idiots, with less garden, or enjoy living in the country?
 
Lynton said:
suz

you speak the biggest load of *******s I have ever heard on here......... and that is an achievement, trust me.....
Click to expand...

How so? If PT were viable in rural areas it would exist wouldn't it?

Cars are still dirt cheap to buy. You can still get a small base models under £7k which has been true for the last 20 years. There are still loads of second hand cars under a grand. Lots of which will easily achieve 45-50 mpg.
 
srichards said:
If the electorate decided they didn't believe in climate change
Click to expand...

Gawdelpum when/if we truly reach the brink. What then? Faced with circumstances beyond our control due to a war or natural disaster do we whinge or adapt?
 
srichards said:
They might have to consider giving up car ownership yes. The real cost of car ownership is relatively low and has been low since the 1980s. There is always car sharing or taxi sharing to consider if PT isn't effective. If it becomes likely that car ownership would fall in rural areas then PT becomes more economically viable. It is the increased car ownership that has made PT un-viable in the first place. It is a chicken and egg situation.

If fuel wasn't taxed heavily then they'd just screw it out of us another way though. It's only highly taxed because of climate change and modal shift and other such things. If the electorate decided they didn't believe in climate change and refused to have taxation associated with all this being green then they'd have to find something else to tax instead. If you don't want high fuel taxes then you have to vote for a party that doesn't believe in climate change.

Car ownership used to be a luxury for the well off. It might have to return that way which will please all the hair shirt sandal wearers.
Click to expand...
So an agricultural worker who starts at 5 a.m. and finishes at 2 a.m. during harvest (actually my youngest son, who works for a contractor when there's work, sometimes just works continuously, taking 10 minute naps in the cab) can find someone to share with at those times?

And when he has to go to work through 4' snowdrifts, which happened last November, will a car or taxi manage that even if there are people who want to share? No, that takes a heavy, fuel guzzling 4x4 that the green brigade would like to ban and the government likes to tax off the road.

What about getting to the animals every day to feed them? That takes either a 4x4 or a tractor, and if he takes the tractor and detours to the local shop to buy food he's breaking the law because he's running on red (as well as on empty).

It seems to me that your understanding of the real world is at about the same level as the politicians:'(
It is the increased car ownership that has made PT un-viable in the first place. It is a chicken and egg situation.
Click to expand...
No, it's the moving of public transport from the public sector to the private sector that has made the situation worse. You can't blame Companies for axing loss making services, but they should never have been put in the position of being able to cherry-pick which services they want to run in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
ok here's the facts for me......

we both live 15 miles away from work. Yes the fuel prices hurt and are noticed - but at the moment we are both fortunate enough in that they are not crippling........ I guess overpaying the mortgage helped out in previous years.

However your "solution" of moving to the city so no need to travel (and by the way public transport here is random, filthy and expensive - it costs me less to drive to norwich and back than a return fare, should the bus turn up) is shallow and ludicrous.

hmmm £80K more to put up with a load of noise and crap and idiots, with less garden, or enjoy living in the country?
Click to expand...

I meant have a shorter drive into work or even a walk. Not necessary to use PT if it is cheaper to go by car anyway. That's what makes it so ludicrous.

Often PT is more expensive than a 20 mpg car would be for the same journey. :thumbsdown:
 
Garry Edwards said:
So an agricultural worker who starts at 5 a.m. and finishes at 2 a.m. during harvest (actually my youngest son, who works for a contractor when there's work, sometimes just works continuously, taking 10 minute naps in the cab) can find someone to share with at those times?

And when he has to go to work through 4' snowdrifts, which happened last November, will a car or taxi manage that even if there are people who want to share? No, that takes a heavy, fuel guzzling 4x4 that the green brigade would like to ban and the government likes to tax off the road.

What about getting to the animals every day to feed them? That takes either a 4x4 or a tractor, and if he takes the tractor and detours to the local shop to buy food he's breaking the law because he's running on red (as well as on empty).

It seems to me that your understanding of the real world is at about the same level as the politicians:'(
No, it's the moving of public transport from the public sector to the private sector that has made the situation worse. You can't blame Companies for axing loss making services, but they should never have been put in the position of being able to cherry-pick which services they want to run in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely spot on and written by someone who *does* understand rural life and the challenges it presents. Forcing people to move to the cities isn't a sensible or practical option, nor can you apply urban transport solutions to a rural economy - ask the Ceaucescus about that.
 
Garry Edwards said:
So an agricultural worker who starts at 5 a.m. and finishes at 2 a.m. during harvest (actually my youngest son, who works for a contractor when there's work, sometimes just works continuously, taking 10 minute naps in the cab) can find someone to share with at those times?

And when he has to go to work through 4' snowdrifts, which happened last November, will a car or taxi manage that even if there are people who want to share? No, that takes a heavy, fuel guzzling 4x4 that the green brigade would like to ban and the government likes to tax off the road.

What about getting to the animals every day to feed them? That takes either a 4x4 or a tractor, and if he takes the tractor and detours to the local shop to buy food he's breaking the law because he's running on red (as well as on empty).

It seems to me that your understanding of the real world is at about the same level as the politicians:'(
No, it's the moving of public transport from the public sector to the private sector that has made the situation worse. You can't blame Companies for axing loss making services, but they should never have been put in the position of being able to cherry-pick which services they want to run in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree on the cherry picking of services. It's what's made things worse beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Tied accommodation used to be the norm for agricultural workers and seems the most sensible solution. Ditto nurses/doctors where people do die if they don't get into work.

I don't agree with all the greenwash. It is utter cobblers but unfortunately the majority in this country believe in it and so accept high fuel prices as a consequence.
 
Islander said:
This is absolutely spot on and written by someone who *does* understand rural life and the challenges it presents. Forcing people to move to the cities isn't a sensible or practical option, nor can you apply urban transport solutions to a rural economy - ask the Ceaucescus about that.
Click to expand...

Then you have a fundamental problem again. Rural economic rules won't work in city economies and vice versa. The majority of people do live in cities and towns. How much of a sacrifice should they make to support rural economies? If locally produced food is too expensive then the global marketplace now offers the choice to go elsewhere even though that might not be strategically the most sensible option.

I'd be happy if fuel tax was dropped tomorrow but it is highly like oil prices will rise to silly levels anyway. So then what do you do when the base commodity is unaffordable?
 
Rural economies support the towns and cities as much as the cities and towns support rural economies. Sourcing food supplies from outside of the UK would be foolish - whether the country likes it or not it needs the rural economy. Cities and, to a lesser extent, towns can have an efficient public transport system that matches the needs of the local enterprise. That simply won't work in the remote countryside so maybe the cities and towns should pay a greater percentage of the fuel tax burden - they do, after all, have far greater access and potential to use the options you prescribed for the rural population. ;)
 
Islander said:
Rural economies support the towns and cities as much as the cities and towns support rural economies. Sourcing food supplies from outside of the UK would be foolish - whether the country likes it or not it needs the rural economy. Cities and, to a lesser extent, towns can have an efficient public transport system that matches the needs of the local enterprise. That simply won't work in the remote countryside so maybe the cities and towns should pay a greater percentage of the fuel tax burden - they do, after all, have far greater access and potential to use the options you prescribed for the rural population. ;)
Click to expand...

You could increase wages for agricultural workers so that using a car for work was affordable but that would have other consequences.

I still don't think there is a sensible workable solution that would work for both city and rural dwellers unless you are prepared to shift taxation onto direct taxation again. Either way you could find that running a car was still unaffordable regardless of whether you had high fuel costs or increased income tax to make up the short fall.
 
srichards said:
Then you have a fundamental problem again. Rural economic rules won't work in city economies and vice versa. The majority of people do live in cities and towns. How much of a sacrifice should they make to support rural economies? If locally produced food is too expensive then the global marketplace now offers the choice to go elsewhere even though that might not be strategically the most sensible option.

I'd be happy if fuel tax was dropped tomorrow but it is highly like oil prices will rise to silly levels anyway. So then what do you do when the base commodity is unaffordable?
Click to expand...
This country found out why it was necessary to support rural economies during the 2nd world war, and nothing has changed since then because we're still an island, cut off from the rest of the world in times of trouble.

Problem is, all of the subsidies that were introduced to ensure that farmers produced the amount of food needed actually go to the rich landowners who don't need them. The workers and small producers who need subsidies don't get them. Typically, when land is sold the SBI is retained by the seller, who grows fat on the subsidy. I'm not rich, but I get SBI on a piece of land I own, even though all that I produce on it is hay for my own horses...

Buying food from abroad is a nonsense. It makes our supermarkets stronger, weakens our own economy and our farmers, pollutes the environment and uses up a lot of fuel - and makes it easy to illegally import weapons and drugs, because perishable foods can't hang around too long in Customs...
 
Garry Edwards said:
This country found out why it was necessary to support rural economies during the 2nd world war, and nothing has changed since then because we're still an island, cut off from the rest of the world in times of trouble.

Problem is, all of the subsidies that were introduced to ensure that farmers produced the amount of food needed actually go to the rich landowners who don't need them. The workers and small producers who need subsidies don't get them. Typically, when land is sold the SBI is retained by the seller, who grows fat on the subsidy. I'm not rich, but I get SBI on a piece of land I own, even though all that I produce on it is hay for my own horses...

Buying food from abroad is a nonsense. It makes our supermarkets stronger, weakens our own economy and our farmers, pollutes the environment and uses up a lot of fuel - and makes it easy to illegally import weapons and drugs, because perishable foods can't hang around too long in Customs...
Click to expand...

Could we even produce the amount of food we need now anyway?

I'd suggest a fat tax. Those that eat too much and use up resources should pay more for fuel :D
 
srichards said:
Could we even produce the amount of food we need now anyway?

I'd suggest a fat tax. Those that eat too much and use up resources should pay more for fuel :D
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but increasing demand for home produced food by subsidies that directly benefit the people who actually produce it would increase capacity, reduce imports and reduce fuel consumption.

Maybe the tax should be weighted against the fat cats who produce nothing and who are a drain on society - politicians, bankers, most lawyers... but of course it never will be. Much easier to apply crippling taxes to fuel, which only makes a real difference to the people to the people who have to use their cars to work for a living
 
I personally think this increase in fuel prices will eventually mean less money for the government. People are reducing their journeys, some are driving more efficiently by for example reducing weight in their cars. (I never put a full tank of petrol).

I noticed recently there are less cars on the road after 20:00PM. There are less people speeding on the motorways hence i see less cars broken down on the motorways. There seem to be a lot of people now driving at around the 60-70mph mark. All these changes will eventually mean the government will loose more.
 
Last edited:
I saw today oil prices have fallen due to the events in Japan http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12732201

It will be interesting to see where they go from here with the fear over nuclear power stations now and the possible mothballing or scrapping of new builds. I know this isn't going to happen over night, yet many governments around the world appeared to be banking on these plants to negate future carbon output. So will we return to oil fired station or clean coal, worrying times indeed.

Not to mention Saudis in Bahrain and Iran meddling too.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12729064
 
ziggy©;3486671 said:
I noticed recently there are less cars on the road after 20:00PM. There are less people speeding on the motorways hence i see less cars broken down on the motorways.
Click to expand...

What have you been smoking

Most broken down car are either random or on poorly maintained cars.

I'm a heavy footed driver and after 14 years of driving with a heavy foot, have only broken down once. This was due to dodgy italian wiring on my Lancia and happened will driving at 20mph and had nothing to do with anything.

As for less people speeding? it really does depend when you drive.

As for rural vs city, you get what you pay for. I'm a halfway in between person. I live in Sandhurst, Berks, but I am only 40 min away from Central London by train.

You live in the city, you pay more and you get the benefits.

You live in the country, you pay less and you have less benefits in terms of public service.

Where are the cheapest houses? where there are no jobs and public services etc. are the worst. You are then stuck in a trap. How do you get out of there? to somewhere better with no job or money? That is the problem.

IMO Its up to the parents to provide the best start of their kids, that includes where they live. I have a relative who wants to live in the country miles from anywhere and has done. Now her kids are both over 18 they can't get jobs as there are none around. She moved halfway across the country to live there, now due to redundancies, the whole family is out of work and there are no jobs in the area. What a sensible choice to make.

The problem is some people start there and don't have many choices and they are the people who suffer.

There is much more to city vs country than house size, garden size and noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top