Welcome to this Forum. It has been set up so that supporters of the Lower Fuel Tax campaign can discuss the ridiculous levels on Fuel tax in this country.
Why is fuel such an issue for William Hague. Has his man who 100% supported the fuel escalator, whose party cosys up to the multinational fuel companies, suddenly had a Damascus Road conversion. No of course not. He is trying to use the genuine grievances of hurting hauliers and the like for his own ends.
Are we really going to be suckered into playing his game. He sees the chaos that surrounded the last fuel protests as his only hope of winning an election, in which many of his own MPs think they have no chance.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. If he does cut the duty on fuel by 6p or more, how long will it be before the oil companies claw it back.
Why is it that we are not prepared to really hit the one group of people who could put real pressure on any government - the oil companies. A call for a boycott of one chain - Esso, BP whatever, would soon hurt the companies who have the ear of all politicians. Why do we poodle around the edge, hurting innocent people whe we could go straight to the heart of the problem. Could it be that we believe that if we called for a mass boycott noone would support us? Let's be honest here. Do we really believe people are behind us, then why not call them to action.
Are we trying to change things for the better, or bully others to do our will, no matter what the consequences for ordinary people.
It's the gov. charging huge taxes, not the oil co's.
In the Euro land fuel is up 25p p/liter cheaper,
and the oil co's are not trying to make that up to the GB price, the EU burocrats are !
Yes, Hague has jumped on the bandwagon to get votes,
but what alternatives do we have ?
Labour at £6 per gallon ?
Lib Dem ?
Emigrate !
Regards,
Martin
What benefit will the 6p a litre cut in fuel be when your mortgage goes up another £100 a month? It doesn't make much difference if you pay tax to the government or interest to a bank, you still can't spend the money. At least tax can be spent on public services, paying it to a private bank only benefits it's shareholders. I can't believe people are seriously saying they want the Tory tossers back in power!
Well lucky old you! Most people have to pay a mortgage and it is our major expense every month. If you are in the fortunate position not to have one yet still want more I'm not surprised you support the Tory loving Fuel Lobby groups who say Give us more, more, more and stuff the rest of you!
No I don't want to keep Fuel costs high - of course I'd like to see them lower. But not if the cost is another 5 years of Tory government with the higher unemployment, interest rates, borrowing, homelessness and general misery that would bring to large numbers of people. This comes from someone who was bought up in a Tory voting household and voted Tory all his life until the Maggie Thatcher era so I'm not a die hard socialist, more a fervent anti-Tory!
A substantial cut in taxes would not lead to lower interest rates. In fact the government would have to borrow money to make up the shortfalla nd theis would lead to higher inflation and, inevitably higher interest rates.
Low interest rates are nice if you're a mortgage payer but, the most imortant reason for having low interest rates is the benfit to industry. So, you don't have a mortgage, will you still be gloating when you're unemployed?
Shirley, as a busineeswoman, should be able to tell you how much of her profit goes to pay the interest on those trucks she's running, and how much more she paid under the Tories (That was before 1997 Shirley)
Yes I remember it was the Tories who gave the idea the go ahead and having done so left Labour with an impossible choice of scrapping what had been done and the money spent when they were elected (for which they would have been accused of wasting money) or picking up the project and carrying in on. It failed because the visitor numbers were over ambitious and the entry cost too high even though the vast majority of people who went to it thought it was excellent. A large amount of the money spent was used to clean up the land around the Dome so it can be used for future development, prime land in central London which will be worth a fortune. So yes it wasn't a 100% success but nor was it a 100% failure and it's easy for the Tories to criticise the project from the sidelines with hindsight but we'll never know what mess or success they'd have made of it.
Do you have a job with the Labour Party Press Office?. Your explanation of the benefits of the Dome development area is almost exactly what dear old TB said last night on "Ask Tony Blair" when questioned about that monument to bad judgement.
You also asked why there were no protests about fuel tax when the Tories were in power. Well perhaps that may be down to the fact that fuel was less than 60p a litre prior to 1997. The fact that the Labour government retained the fuel escalator and used it to push the price of fuel up to 89p a litre may have had something to do with the upswell in public disatisfaction.
So are you saying my points about the Dome are wrong? If so maybe you could point out where? Were the expected visitor numbers too ambitious? Was entry it too expensive? Did people who went say they enjoyed it? Was the land reclaimed? Is it in Central London? Is it worth a small fortune? I can't see anything wrong there, just facts the Tories don't like to accept.
Regarding your deliberately misleading figure of 89p a litre - Funny I didn't pay 89p a litre last time I filled up, more like 67p I think. But I wouldn't want mere facts like that to get in the way of your little pro-Tory movement!
Blair has said with hindsight it was a mistake for a government to try to run a visitor attraction, which is about as much of an admission of failure as you're likely to get from a politician! However the fact still remains that land in a sought after area of London which was no use before is now ready for development. I'm sure not everyone liked it (some people hate Theme Parks like Alton Towers, others can't get enough of them) but I've heard of enough people who did. Personally I wasn't interested in it from the start and would never have paid £25 for a ticket, £10 maybe.
Didn't the dome go wrong because it was supposed to be filled with celebrations of Britain in the Millennium, but it was "managed" by cronies (with no qualifications, credentials or experience of visitor attractions) of a government which didn't believe in Britain, didn't believe in the Millennium (didn't even know when or what it was) and didn't believe in people driving to it?
