Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Out of touch. Out of office.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23 May 2008, 10:11 AM
  #1  
FlightMan
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
FlightMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Out of touch. Out of office.

Anyone hear Harriet Harman on Radio 4 this morning? John Humphrys asked her how the Govt were going to help people who are struggling with food and fuel prices.

Regarding fuel, this is the help we can look forwards to.

The Govt are going to talk to oil producers about increasing supply.
The Govt are going to look into new technologies.

So don't worry, Gordon is on the case. We're saved!

I envisaged millions of people screaming at the radio, CUT THE BLOODY FUEL TAX. SCRAP THE INCREASE IN VED.

Exactly what planet are these people on?
Old 23 May 2008, 10:17 AM
  #2  
PeteBrant
Scooby Regular
 
PeteBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FlightMan

I envisaged millions of people screaming at the radio, CUT THE BLOODY FUEL TAX. SCRAP THE INCREASE IN VED.

Exactly what planet are these people on?
The fuel duty is a fixed sum - The increase in oil costs does not affect it one jot.

VAT is however, affected, and there is an argument for the Government saying at the beggning of the year, "We need to take X Billion from fuel this year", and they then adjust the duty on a monthly basis to compensate for fluctuations (making up the balance with the VAT take)

However people would need to be aware that this could mean that fuel duity would go up as well as down. But at least you would have 12 month chuncks of pretty stable fuel prices.

Regardless, a straight cut in Fuel Duty is not going to happen, without some caveat, regardless of what party is in power.
Old 23 May 2008, 10:30 AM
  #3  
Maz
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (34)
 
Maz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Yorkshire.
Posts: 15,884
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It's the same old retorhic, same old bull **** and same old politician's waffle. There's no way they'll cut duty. This would compromise their own interests. These people aren't affected by the issues being discussed.
Old 23 May 2008, 10:32 AM
  #4  
Snazy
Scooby Regular
 
Snazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Its ok though, as Brown says he is "the man to put things right"
Which is about right I guess. You broke it, you fit it........ lol

Awaits political lecture!
Old 23 May 2008, 11:14 AM
  #5  
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
 
f1_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Snazy
Its ok though, as Brown says he is "the man to put things right"
Which is about right I guess. You broke it, you fit it........ lol

Awaits political lecture!
No lecture, just a question. In what way has Gordon Brown been responsible for the increase in the cost of Brent Crude?

Fair enough, blame him for all the crap he is responsible for, but this is not really his doing unless I have missed the point.
Old 23 May 2008, 11:33 AM
  #7  
MattW
Scooby Regular
 
MattW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Agree with Pete. The government requires an income of x billion, by reducing fuel duty it would just need to be gathered somewhere else, unless of course lower public spendinng or higher borrowing enters the equation.

Trending Topics

Old 23 May 2008, 11:38 AM
  #8  
scoobynutta555
Scooby Regular
 
scoobynutta555's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'll say what I said ages ago. We need MPs who get the average UK wage with no expenses. The pensions, salaries and expenses of modern day MPs bear no relation to what the average bloke on the street gets, which IMHO, makes them incapable of properly representing us.
Old 23 May 2008, 11:39 AM
  #9  
Snazy
Scooby Regular
 
Snazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by f1_fan
No lecture, just a question. In what way has Gordon Brown been responsible for the increase in the cost of Brent Crude?

Fair enough, blame him for all the crap he is responsible for, but this is not really his doing unless I have missed the point.
Didn't say anything about oil, I was referring more to the UK and society lol

However was a light hearted dig, rather than political statement. Kicking a man when he is down and all
Old 23 May 2008, 11:40 AM
  #10  
Snazy
Scooby Regular
 
Snazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MattW
Agree with Pete. The government requires an income of x billion, by reducing fuel duty it would just need to be gathered somewhere else, unless of course lower public spendinng or higher borrowing enters the equation.
However, as the fuel price rises, the value of the VAT on each litre rises with it. A 10p rise at the pumps if it were so simple would equate to a 1.7p per litre rise in VAT. Which would be in excess of what what budgetted for in the budget. So would it be fair to cap the VAT in some way on the fuel ?
Old 23 May 2008, 11:41 AM
  #11  
Flatcapdriver
Scooby Regular
 
Flatcapdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by hutton_d
Seems a lot of the increase is due to speculators (if you believe some of the media) as was the recent/current credit crunch. Flash could have done more as chancellor to regulate the banking industry. So, yes, it is partly his fault!

Dave
There has been widespread collusion between the banks and hedge funds, of which some estimates suggest that 60% of the current oil price is due to their manipulation of the markets.

Personally, I wouldn't put it that high but there is a massive amount of speculative activity forcing prices higher and whilst there has been some media coverage I'm surprised that it hasn't received a wider audience.

There again, its far easier to blame the Government that understand the real facts, although your point about Greedy Gordon is well made but unfortunately letting the banks make a quick buck is preferable to letting them go to the wall which is the other option.
Old 23 May 2008, 11:44 AM
  #12  
PeteBrant
Scooby Regular
 
PeteBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Snazy
However, as the fuel price rises, the value of the VAT on each litre rises with it. A 10p rise at the pumps if it were so simple would equate to a 1.7p per litre rise in VAT. Which would be in excess of what what budgetted for in the budget. So would it be fair to cap the VAT in some way on the fuel ?
Like I said, the way to do it is to declare you yearly expectations for fuel revenue at budget time, then adjust the fuel duty per month accordingly.

You can't adjust or cap the VAT rate - That would open up a whole other raft of issues.

The thing people need to accept though is that in exachnge for stable rpices, you may end up payng more per litre than you might under the current system if the price of oil drops - It's not a one way street
Old 23 May 2008, 11:46 AM
  #13  
PeteBrant
Scooby Regular
 
PeteBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
I'll say what I said ages ago. We need MPs who get the average UK wage with no expenses. The pensions, salaries and expenses of modern day MPs bear no relation to what the average bloke on the street gets, which IMHO, makes them incapable of properly representing us.

Problem is, I would trust the average man in the street to run a **** up in a brewery, let alone the country.

If you want top people, you have to pay top wages. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Old 23 May 2008, 11:52 AM
  #14  
The Chief
Scooby Regular
 
The Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: There is only one God - Elvis!
Posts: 8,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MattW
Agree with Pete. The government requires an income of x billion, by reducing fuel duty it would just need to be gathered somewhere else, unless of course lower public spendinng or higher borrowing enters the equation.
cut the benefits of lazy t**ts that refuse to work or are fraudulently claiming disability/incapacity and make them go back to work

I used to work (for a short time) for the benefits agency and the fraud that goes on is unbelievable
Old 23 May 2008, 11:52 AM
  #15  
Snazy
Scooby Regular
 
Snazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PeteBrant
Problem is, I would trust the average man in the street to run a **** up in a brewery, let alone the country.

If you want top people, you have to pay top wages. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
But as per any high end job, you always get some frauds in there somewhere.
Not all of them are worth the money they are paid, on all sides.
Old 23 May 2008, 11:53 AM
  #16  
RichardS2005
Scooby Regular
 
RichardS2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Gamertag xxxenonnn
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PeteBrant
If you want top people, you have to pay top wages. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Is that meant to be ironic?
Old 23 May 2008, 11:55 AM
  #17  
warrenm2
Scooby Regular
 
warrenm2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by f1_fan
No lecture, just a question. In what way has Gordon Brown been responsible for the increase in the cost of Brent Crude?

Fair enough, blame him for all the crap he is responsible for, but this is not really his doing unless I have missed the point.
Tax rises of course!

BBC NEWS | Business | Brown doubles North Sea oil tax
Old 23 May 2008, 11:58 AM
  #18  
PeteBrant
Scooby Regular
 
PeteBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RichardS2005
Is that meant to be ironic?
What has that got to do with the recent rises - given that this happend in 2005?
Old 23 May 2008, 12:06 PM
  #19  
borat52
Scooby Regular
 
borat52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

As Crude goes up in price the G take more from our oil companies due to the windfall tax on north sea oil. Would it not seem sensible to pass this extra revenue on to the motorist in terms of a few pence off the price of unleaded. Its prudent (you only cut unleaded by the amount of extra tax you get from north sea revenues) and its sensible as the last thing you want to do when people are struggling with finances is push them towards bankruptcy.

If I were in power I'd have capped the average petrol/diesel price at 99p/litre by reducing the duty on it/removing the VAT until either the price came down or the economy showed signs of recovery.

Lets face it the average middle clash brit worker is struggling to make ends meet, the Government need to take steps to ease the weekly burden so we can push through this hard time. Now would be the time to be handing out tax breaks and incentives to business to stimulate the economy.
Old 23 May 2008, 12:09 PM
  #20  
borat52
Scooby Regular
 
borat52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

A word on speculation in the oil markets also. Crude is traded in physical delivery futures (current delivery is for June 2008). If speculation were really the dominant force in the crude market then the traders who were speculating would have lots of oil piling up in their offices. This is not happening. Speculation is no doubt helping to drive the price up but not by much. Ultimately the world is demanding more oil than ever and supply is not growing, hence price increases.
Old 23 May 2008, 12:14 PM
  #22  
scoobynutta555
Scooby Regular
 
scoobynutta555's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PeteBrant
Problem is, I would trust the average man in the street to run a **** up in a brewery, let alone the country.

If you want top people, you have to pay top wages. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

MP's, average men/women or not, are elected by the general public, not hand picked because they hold several degrees.

I think it's a facile argument saying the more you pay the higher the grade of elected representitive, which is essentially what you are saying.

My point is that because of the significant benefits associated with the post MPs are increasingly out of touch with the average person. Simply retaining these benefits, or indeed paying them yet even more, will make them increasingly out of touch with the electorate in these times of hardship, even to the extent there is further resentment towards them. From this you will get legislation or non action on the subjects that do not reflect the direction and will of the average person.

It saddens me you feel the more a person is paid the better they will be at their job, especailly a post where you're supposed to represent your local electorate as well as the electorate as a whole.
Old 23 May 2008, 12:21 PM
  #23  
PeteBrant
Scooby Regular
 
PeteBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by hutton_d
Look what happens now. We pay top wages (inc. expenses) and get a shower (of all parties) of MPs who it would be an insult to monkies to call them that ....

Dave


We don't pay top wages at all. We poay a good wage, but compared to what these people could earn in the private sector it is not "top".

Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
MP's, average men/women or not, are elected by the general public, not hand picked because they hold several degrees.

I think it's a facile argument saying the more you pay the higher the grade of elected representitive, which is essentially what you are saying.

My point is that because of the significant benefits associated with the post MPs are increasingly out of touch with the average person. Simply retaining these benefits, or indeed paying them yet even more, will make them increasingly out of touch with the electorate in these times of hardship, even to the extent there is further resentment towards them. From this you will get legislation or non action on the subjects that do not reflect the direction and will of the average person.

It saddens me you feel the more a person is paid the better they will be at their job, especailly a post where you're supposed to represent your local electorate as well as the electorate as a whole.
The average person in the street does not have the intelligence to make informed assesments and decisions on many of the matters that MPs do. That is exactly why we delegate the reposnibility for making these decisions to parliament. So that these people can pour over legislation and make informed decisions.

In every single walk of life, the more qualified people will go for the higher paid jobs.

If you paid average wage, thos epeople that we currently have as MPs would by and large go to work in private instituions.

Decisions made by MPs are not simply about what we have in our pockets. There ar eoften extremely complex discussions which require more insight than what you read in The Sun

Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
MP's, average men/women or not, are elected by the general public, not hand picked because they hold several degrees.

MPs aren't hand picked - But candidates are...
Old 23 May 2008, 12:22 PM
  #24  
TelBoy
Scooby Regular
 
TelBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by borat52
A word on speculation in the oil markets also. Crude is traded in physical delivery futures (current delivery is for June 2008). If speculation were really the dominant force in the crude market then the traders who were speculating would have lots of oil piling up in their offices. This is not happening. Speculation is no doubt helping to drive the price up but not by much. Ultimately the world is demanding more oil than ever and supply is not growing, hence price increases.

Er, no. Futures markets don't work like that. Contracts can be rolled, you don't have to buy a supertanker if you're currently long Jun08 Brent.
Old 23 May 2008, 12:40 PM
  #25  
Flatcapdriver
Scooby Regular
 
Flatcapdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by borat52
A word on speculation in the oil markets also. Crude is traded in physical delivery futures (current delivery is for June 2008). If speculation were really the dominant force in the crude market then the traders who were speculating would have lots of oil piling up in their offices. This is not happening. Speculation is no doubt helping to drive the price up but not by much. Ultimately the world is demanding more oil than ever and supply is not growing, hence price increases.
Really? Demand has dropped off lately whilst supply doesn't need to grow given that refinery capacity is running at about 80-85% but we're constantly fed the 'hard data' that this is all the fault of China which consumes around a quarter of the US's consumption.

Look at the LPG market. Similar situation, demand isn't the driver and the current CIF prices don't bear any relation to physical stocks, let alone demand drivers.
Old 23 May 2008, 12:45 PM
  #26  
J4CKO
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
J4CKO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,384
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Just one point, the increase, be it due to demand, be it speculators, what I want to know is where is all the extra money going ?

THE OIL COMPANIES/OPEC AND THEIR SHAREHOLDERS !

Again, the rich get richer whilst d1cking everyone else, now dont get me wrong I am a captilist but when it gets to the stage where a few people hold all the wealth its got out of hand.

Maybe its OPEC doing this, I reckon they are stacking away even more cash than normal so when it does run out the members can diversify into other areas.

They are showing their hands to early though, this if sustained will force people into other ways to generate energy and alternative fuels, I reckon the oil wont run out, I reckon it will get so expensive nobody will want it before its done with. So we need to do what we can to lessen, then cancel our reliance on bloody oil.

I hate being dependant on the whims of Russian Billionaires, Investors that fooked up the market looking for new avenues, Middle Eastern Trillionaires and Gordon F'ing Brown's whims making my limited car use stupidly expensive.
Old 23 May 2008, 01:10 PM
  #27  
DCI Gene Hunt
Scooby Senior
 
DCI Gene Hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The Gov make around 50p per litre in fuel duty and another 18p in tax per litre, so why on earth would they scrap it

The sound of Gordons coffers = "KER-FECKIN-BIG-CHING"
Old 23 May 2008, 01:11 PM
  #28  
scoobynutta555
Scooby Regular
 
scoobynutta555's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by PeteBrant
We don't pay top wages at all. We poay a good wage, but compared to what these people could earn in the private sector it is not "top".



The average person in the street does not have the intelligence to make informed assesments and decisions on many of the matters that MPs do. That is exactly why we delegate the reposnibility for making these decisions to parliament. So that these people can pour over legislation and make informed decisions.

In every single walk of life, the more qualified people will go for the higher paid jobs.

If you paid average wage, thos epeople that we currently have as MPs would by and large go to work in private instituions.

Decisions made by MPs are not simply about what we have in our pockets. There ar eoften extremely complex discussions which require more insight than what you read in The Sun




MPs aren't hand picked - But candidates are...
I haven't read such a myopic load of old tripe on here for ages.
Old 23 May 2008, 01:17 PM
  #29  
warrenm2
Scooby Regular
 
warrenm2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
I haven't read such a myopic load of old tripe on here for ages.
Theres still Petes ideological bum buddy Martin2005's posts to read then......
Old 23 May 2008, 01:28 PM
  #30  
SiPie
Scooby Regular
 
SiPie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,249
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Theres still Petes ideological bum buddy Martin2005's posts to read then......


Quick Reply: Out of touch. Out of office.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 PM.