Fuel prices

[307]

we should be paying should be no more than 2p per litre extra compared to the rest of the UK.

The local fuel rip off merchants should be brought to book.

Which is for me a valid political issue in this neck of the woods.
Clearly the cost of fuel is stifling the local economy, and also does little to encourage the dwindling tourists to stay in the locale.
In our enthusiastic discussion here two issues are presented:
(1) fuel is overtaxed in the UK;
(2) the far north seems to suffer from a cartel which inflates the price at the pump.

So whats to do ?

[Zael]

(1) fuel is overtaxed in the UK

Yes it is, but then from my standpoint, everything is overtaxed. In an effort to pacify the really rich, governments have reduced income tax and increased other taxes, like fuel, tobacco, vat, etc which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer and the people in the middle are closer to the poor than ever. Taxation on a more local level would be beneficial to areas like Caithness where incomes are much lower than the national average.

(2) the far north seems to suffer from a cartel which inflates the price at the pump.

Not much we can do, unless someone manages to get any evidence this will continue until we get something like Tescos (with a filling station) who would be more likely to charge national prices (even with a 2p Highland surcharge) and force the cartel to either compete or go to the wall.

[307]

I see from todays news.bbc.co.uk that action is planned by hauliers :

Hauliers threaten poll disruption

Protesters are threatening to take to the streets on 3 May
Fuel tax protesters are threatening to disrupt the general election with a campaign of oil refinery blockades and go-slows starting on 3 May.

Of course what we require is action taken by other fuel users i.e. not only road but industrial & domestic also, to make the politicos aware of the REAL ISSUES affecting the UK.

[DrSzin]

Yes it is, but then from my standpoint, everything is overtaxed. In an effort to pacify the really rich, governments have reduced income tax and increased other taxes, like fuel, tobacco, vat, etc which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer and the people in the middle are closer to the poor than ever.

Unfortunately, I think there is more than a grain of truth in what you say. But the people in the upper-middle have gained enormously too.

Taxation on a more local level would be beneficial to areas like Caithness where incomes are much lower than the national average.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

If local incomes are lower than the national average, then the money raised locally by income tax and national insurance will also be lower; disposable incomes will be lower than the national average, as will the money raised by indirect taxes such as VAT. If public spending is based on locally-raised taxes, then it will also drop, and the area could go into a downward spiral.

With the current model, areas with low income benefit from the taxes raised from taxpayers in areas with higher incomes.

Or do I misunderstand what you are saying? Do you envisage lower local taxes, but local spending based on some sort of national average? Sounds good, but it would require the consent of national politicians, not to mention the national electorate.

Of course what we require is action taken by other fuel users i.e. not only road but industrial & domestic also, to make the politicos aware of the REAL ISSUES affecting the UK.

They may be the "real issues" affecting you, but they sure aren't the real issues affecting me. In fact they have barely raised their heads above the parapet in this election campaign.

Curiously, "Europe" has been almost invisible in this election. I guess the Europhobes are too busy being immigrantophobes and asylum-seekerophobes this time around.

[DrSzin]

Yes it is, but then from my standpoint, everything is overtaxed. In an effort to pacify the really rich, governments have reduced income tax and increased other taxes, like fuel, tobacco, vat, etc which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer and the people in the middle are closer to the poor than ever.

Unfortunately, I think there is more than a grain of truth in what you say. But the people in the upper-middle have gained enormously too.

For once, I am happy to report that I was competely and utterly wrong.

Well, I was completely wrong if you apply my comments to the current Labour Government. An article by Alf Young in today's Herald reports:

As it happens, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has just produced a nine-page election briefing on the winners and losers from all Labour's accumulated tax and benefit changes since 1997. It shows that significant redistribution can still be achieved, at precious little extra net cost to the Exchequer, amid all the chancellor's talk of prudence, stability and fiscal responsibility.
According to the IFS, lone parents, pensioners, unemployed couples with children, single-earner households with children and multi-family households with children have all benefited from Gordon Brown's redistributist instincts since 1997, by as much as £48.91 a week. Individuals, whether working or not, couples with no children and two-earner families, even if they have children, have all lost out, by as much as £22.73 a week. As we already suspected, the redistribution has been carefully targeted across the income scale. In Labour's first term, the impact on the wealthiest in society was minimal, while the gains at the other end of the income scale were greatest not for the poorest, but for those in the second and third lowest deciles of the income distribution. Brown's targeting improved significantly in Labour's second term. Households in the bottom three income bands all gained more, while those in the top four bands all lost more.
Overall, from 1997 till today, the bottom two bands saw their household incomes increase by more than 11% on average, while the richest 10th saw their incomes fall by 3.7% on average. But, perversely, the chancellor's redistribution policy was actually much more generous, on average, before the 2001 election than it proved afterwards

However, there is a caveat:

But all the redistribution did little more than unravel the redistribution that had taken place in the opposite direction, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, since 1985. They boosted the income of the richest 10% of households by 5.8%. Brown has clawed back 3.7%. Under the Tories, the poorest decile saw their incomes cut by 2.9%. Brown has boosted them by more than 11%

This analysis is based on a recent publication from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an organisation not to be taken lightly. The publication is here. Just look at the redistribution plots on pages 4, 5 & 7. That is surely impressive by anyone's standards. Gordon Brown remains my political hero; I just wish I could vote for him as PM.

Maybe I should follow Polly and hold my nose, vote Blair and Brown will be the victor after all. Polly doesn't believe the polls and I suspect she may be right: in my experience, people are more honest in emails than they are on the phone or in face-to-face conservations; I once saw some evidence for this, but I don't remember where. The thought of a Howard-led Tory government messing up both a strong economy and the recent significant redistribution of wealth is just too much. Maybe I will vote Labour after all. I thought I was in a Labour/LibDem marginal, but due to boundary changes, it may be a 3-way Labour/LibDem/Tory marginal, and the Tory is a creep of the creepiest kind.

Having said that, I would vote Lib Dem in Caithness. Surely John Thurso will win easily: no voter will want to take his or her turn at changing the Labour candidate' s (intellectual) nappy.

[Bill Fernie]

No candidate can take anythig for granted.
The last election result showed John Thurso a clear winner but it was a split vote with the majority not voting for him. The result was as follows -

2001 Result In Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross
John Thurso - Lib Dem - 9041 Majority 2,744
Michael Meighan Labour - 6297
John Macadam - SNP - 5273
Robbie Rowantree - Conservative - 3513
Karn Mabon - Scottish Socialist - 544
Gordon Campbell - Independent - 199

If the Labour and SNP total vote had gone to one candidate things would have been very different. The constituency has a virtual re-run of the last election with six candidates standing - two of them the same John Thurso and Gordon Campbell. Once again the area has outside candidates brought in by the other main parties - not uncommon but giviing them an uphill task against the sitting candidate known to most people in the area. Of the other candidates from last time I see that Robbie Rowantree for the conservatives is having another go in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

I wonder if the first past the post system will last much longer given the changes in the Scotttish Parliament elections and Welsh Assembly and the changes coming for local government with multi member wards.

Is everyone happy to have different electoral sytems for the different tiers of government?

[sandy01]

I've just found out that the cost of petrol and diesel, on a Shell fuel card, has not changed in the last month. So again why the sudden increases in such a shot time locally???????????? It does'nt make any sense.

[Rheghead]

Sandy01, as I said earlier, a local fuel trader admitted to me that the local cartel push up prices in the far north during the tourist season. A price rise that is independent of the oil companies.