Power of the pumps

Make no mistake; everything Gordon Brown touches turns to dust.

This latest attempt to 'control' oil prices with 'intervention' is doomed to failure.

You can't buck the market said an ex-leaderenne.

Sadly, 'control' is the Brown doctrine and it's doomed. It's becoming increasingly clear the man is an unreconstructed communist.

Nick,
the power of the pumps is an important measuring stick, in the future leadership of a country.

I think most people could stomach the level of taxes on fuel, as long as they weren't also being clobbered on everything else too so badly.

The problem is that the tax burden generally is so regressive and huge that the tax on fuel knocks a lot of people over the edge, so the price at the pumps is a yard-stick on how high our taxes are generally, and that's what's really annoying people.

Personally I'd rather see a general shift away from regressive taxes rather than just targeting one specific tax such as fuel excise duty, because some people who don't have a car are still badly hit in other ways (council tax etc).

Upshot is (in my opinion) - let people keep more of their income in the first place, and then let them decide where to spend it, rather than trying to micro-manage people's spending habits.

I don't like the idea that the government should be telling me what to spend my money on; just let me keep more of my money in the first place and let me decide where to spend it, and don't try to force me to beg for some of my income back via tax credits.

So, reduce regressive taxes generally, and get the money from some other fairer way, such as income tax threshold tweaks/pcts and/or saving on government waste and/or by increasing the ability of UK companies/people to profit by eliminating red tape.

Reward people for success rather than killing them with taxes whenever they create a profit for the UK or generate new jobs.

Really, we've got nothing to offer the arabs in return for their cooperation.

If they significantly lift production the price will drop, their only asset will run out faster, earn less money and they'll be worse of at our expense.

If however, they leave things largely unchanged, their revenues increase, their fields will last longer and they'll be better off at our expense.

If we slip into recession, things will be even better for them as we'll use even less, the price will rise even more and they'll be even better off for much longer.

God forbid the US/Israeli alliance attacks Iran, the arabs will really be coining it in then.

It's a no-brainer really. There is no advantage to the Saudis in depleting their fields faster for less money. Nor is there any mileage in asking them for 100Bn to fund nuclear power stations over here. Not unless we're prepared to pay interest rates that compensate for the use of less oil AND agree to the transfer of nuclear technology to the Gulf.

An AA survey says that drivers SAY they will vote for a change of government. if prices go up. What a suprise!

David Cameron jumps on the fuel price bandwagon with vague nonsense about sharing the pain between government and the Motorist.

RobinJD @1 So you think that the leader of NEW LABOUR is a communist? I think that says more about your politics than his.

New Labour is Conservative with a hint of socialism. Like that flavoured water.

Let's face it Brown is doing quite nicely out of these petrol hikes. He can't afford to moan too much otherwise he'll actually have to do something about it (like cutting fuel duty) We might not be in such a desparate position now if we'd have had that cheap integrated transport system they promised. Remember those wild days of New labour policy initiatives on transport?

The trip to Jeddah may have given Gordon some positive headlines for the fact that he actually did something. The fact that the 'something' he tried was always doomed to failure is only beginning to filter through the media as he announced that prices should come down, and then they went up.

So, Mr Bean goes to Jeddah pleading for lower oil prices and, guess what happens...up they go. Entirely predictable, given his ability to turn to dust everything he touches.

The only way our control-freak 'PM' can influence petrol costs is to return some of the huge fuel tax windfall his 'government' has received from the 20%+ increase in pump prices during the last year alone. Given the outcome of his years of 'prudence' - the catastrophic debts incurred that now must be serviced - this is a likely as the survival of a snowball in the Sahara.

Am I being Dense or does the creation of oil take a fair bit of time from ground to petrol?

Plus as Redlenin states why would the arabs care? Also we surely wont be in their good books accusing them of partaking in Fraud.

I think Gordon Brown tries to please everyone and please nobody.

I think the following saying should be explained to him.

"The man that chases two rabbits end up with neither"

Put simply stop chasing headlines and focus on policy.

@4 RedLenin you have got supply and demand the wrong way round:

"If we slip into recession, things will be even better for them as we'll use even less, the price will rise even more"

If we use less, then the demand is lower and the price falls.

This is why the chinese are increasing the price of petroleum products, to dampen demand. Other than that, you are correct.

Brown is a terrible ambassador for this country. Is there nobody else we can send in his place to negotiate on our behalf?

Actually the whole Labour party are terrible representation of this country... if I was dealing with them I would also put the price up!

News just in!!! Uncle Gordon and the rest of the cabinet have decided (i won't use that awful word pledged ) to use national express coaches for their UK travel from now on. 'we have a duty,' he said, 'to downsize (yuk another management word) our transportaional requirements going forward (yuk again), so I and my cabinet, will in the future, sometime soon, well maybe if we can get around to it, errrmmm, oh nevermind. Let's just say we intend to do something about whatever needs doing errmm on national express thingies.'

Bless him. He actually still believes he can do something. Still trying his 'outmost' still failing.

Must be rather depressing being NewLabour, NewCommunist right now. It's all going a bit Pete Tong.

Can't wait for the next keynote five year plan. Give me some targets. hospital beds up, school standards down. Universities not delivering. housing market collapsing. Social disintegration. Socialist dogma.

A few facts:

1) As over 70% of the price of fuel at the pumps is duty, tax (and VAT on top), the price that we consumers pay is unrelated to the price of crude oil. The price of a barrel of crude could jump to $200 and it would still be cheaper than what we pay at the pumps if we weren't being fleeced by the government.

2) Every time the price of crude oil rises, the Treasury benefits as the taxes rise too.

3) The Government has no contingency or reserves (for a 'rainy day') as they are totally committed to spend every penny. Any contingency they did have - they've wasted (£2.7 billion here, £300M there for DUP, guarantees for Northern Crock, etc.) - so they can't cut duty without someone somewhere feeling the pain....

4) The Saudis must have been embarrassed to find Gordon prostrating himself before them begging for crumbs and offering ridiculous favours in return ("help us invest in technologies that will make your sole product redundant - then you can go back to herding camels in the desserts of Arabia..."). Hmmm, on the other hand, they probably enjoyed it.

5) This talk of replacing Darling is all Balls.

(OK, No. 5 is a guess rather than a fact, but still more credible than anything that ever comes out of No. 10).

Only charging VAT (that's Value Added Tax) on the cost of petrol/diesel and not on Fuel Tax (that's taxing the tax as happens now) would be a good start in reducing fuel prices.

And of course, the Value Added Tax you pay on the Fuel Tax comes from what you have left after paying 20% or 40% tax on your income.

Tax on tax on taxed income. Come on, Gordy, give us a break.

13 RobinJD

Re the 5-year plan, where are the Tractors?

News just in!! Leaked policy document form New Labour HQ.

A STATEGIC PLAN FOR REDUCING THE POLITICAL DAMAGE OF PETROL HIKES.

DAVID MILLIBAND.

First option: do something (anything will do)

Benefits: We look better and the public will love us again.

Second option: Do nothing, but appear to be doing something.
Benefits: Makes us 'look' positive, confident and in control.

ASSESSMENT

If we really do something (like cutting fuel duty)we'll lose a lot of money to spend on many of those loony tune initiatives we want to progress going forward. So not an option. If we do nothing we might look positive but, if it goes belly-up, we'll be perceived as weak by the public, well, I won't, Gordon will actually, and then, well, you know, it'll be good for me, if he goes that is. Mmmm not such a bad idea then, so, conclusion: Carry on as normal and do nothing.

@10 - On the contary. They control supply and as a result control price. If we slip into recession and use less, they will up the price to compensate.

The natural laws of supply and demand don't apply in this case, nor as we are now finding out, do they apply to natural gas either

I wish somebody in Government would trouble to sit down with an expert or two to analysize why the oil price continues to rise.
Going to Saudi Arabia and wagging your finger at members of Opec and insisting on increase production is not the answer.The answer maybe is to understand that there is not a shortage of oil against demand but a shortage of high API grade oil
(thin oil) that is required to go through the refineries,who dont have any spare operating capacity,in order to produce the high end fuels for aircraft ,motor vehicle etc. that are in demand.
So the refineries want light crudes only to maximize their profits and avoid refining unwanted tars and bitumins.
So unless increase production is light crude only increase in production across the board wont make a scrap of difference to the price.
The pity is that the problem actually eminates from the USA where refining capacity outstrips demand and they are relying on imported crude to refine for fuel to run their airplanes and cars.
The other issue is the role of the speculators ,who are speculating on the prices of light crudes that are in demand dragging the heavy crude and ironically the gas price(tied to oil price) up with them.
There are control mechanism available in the financial system where speculators behaviour could be better controlled but for some reason that escapes me the controls are not being implemented.
So until production of light crude,and not a mixture increases there will be no chance of a price reduction
So if Mr Brown is genuinely concerned about the cost of fuel to the public then he needs to reduce the tax.-not likely though.

Diesel was about 100p a litre just before Christmas and is now 130p a litre.

Fuel duty is a static 56p so the difference on the VAT means that the government now takes an extra 5 pence per litre in revenue.

Not to mention the the increased income from north sea oil due to the rise in crude.

Gota pay for those Quangos some how I guess.

Scepticmax@14
"....4) The Saudis must have been embarrassed to find Gordon prostrating himself before them begging for crumbs and offering ridiculous favours in return ("help us invest in technologies that will make your sole product redundant - then you can go back to herding camels in the desserts of Arabia..."). Hmmm, on the other hand, they probably enjoyed it......"

INVESTING (that means providing money to get more money in return) in renewables. Would be an alternative income for the Saudis who are facing the prospect of the oil running out. It is not competition. Demand is so high any less oil we use can be sold elsewhere as demand outstrips supply.

I think that if you got what you wanted. No tax on fuel. Prices would still end up as high as they are. Only they would be profit. or motorists would be spending just as much wasting petrol sitting in traffic jams. also think of the planet man. it would just be one more step to environmental oblivion.

@19. Having read a huge amount of stuff about Peak Oil over the last few years, that is a spot-on analysis with one exception.

There is another thing that could be done to alleviate and that's building more refinaries. However they take approximately 10 years to build and bring on-line. In addition, the oil companies have now realised properly and in full that their business is centred on have finite resource and there are going to be increasingly difficult and costly factors affecting it's extraction, so it has become in their interests to hold the price up as much as possible as long as possible and take as much money as possible for as long as possible before:-

a. It runs out or becomes to costly and difficult to find/extract.

b. Some smart-alec ruins their party by perfecting cold nuclear fusion.

So when our beloved leader kneels before The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and pleads for increased production so that his most precious and limited natural resource will be cheaper for us Brits.

Knowing that fuel actually only costs 54p before tax and 130p when taxed to max.

Whats he gona say ?






Yep that’s what Id say too.

Today's news is the cabinet are not going to take their pay rise if they were paid on results they owe us .

To talk about pay restraint is b....ks, I challenge any member of today's cabinet to live on £6.50 per hour of course they and the MPs get expenses to buy rugs, TV , furniture, etc the time is coming for the little man to stand up and their are millions of us and we will win eventually.

Fuel, Food and Housing are the basics of life .Gordon , Alistair , Jack, Ed you got to go now.

As the underlying price rises tax should be lowered to keep the price burden constant

obviously after 10 amazing years with an economic genius running the economy the coffers will be overflowing to allow this

Removing or lowering taxes would achieve diddly-squat. The oil companies/garages etc would just add it back in and the price would remain the same.

That could only be stopped by heavy regulation of the markets. I believe that's more commonly known as state socialism.

This is not a problem of taxation, it is a problem of the markets behaving exactly as markets are supposed to do, yet capitalists - who claim to support markets - whinging about the consequences and the impact. In short not only trying to have their cake and eat it.

The days of relatively cheap fuel are over. Get used to it, we are rapidly advancing to an age where we will have a standard of life roughly equivalent to the late 60's/early 70's.

I live 400 yards from where I work. I visit the shops after work. I use very little electric and gas - combined less than £50 a month. I haven't owned a car for over 2 years and I live in a rented house that is just big enough for me and the wife who also works where I work. We earn 28K gross a year between us.

I used to be self-employed, business, over a grand a week in my pocket living the high-life, shiney black BMW, the works. I saw all this coming 4-5 years ago. Credit crunch, peak oil, the works. It was blatantly obvious, it's just that people refused to accept what they were told. Ladt summer Bears-Stern etc were saying oil would break 120 dollars a barrell by easter this year and continue to climb, possibly briefly nudging 150 dollars by summer's end. So why has it come as surprise that it's done exactly as thought?

It will be 250 dollars a barrel by the end of next year. Get used to the idea.

I adjusted ready for it and here it is.

I was actually pretty disgusted that Brown went to Jeddah 'cap-in-hand' - how many more favours (eg - allegedly dropped prosecutions) do we now owe the Saudis?

(Moderater, please note that I have made it quite clear that there was only ever a hint that the al-Yamamah prosecution was dropped - no concrete proof).

And for what? For a very slight increase in production which probably is nowhere near what's needed to keep up with a month's increase in Global demand.

Cameron, well, am I the only one that wonders what the Conservatives actually stand for these days?

Perhaps they're just waiting for the Liberal Democrats to come up with their policy so they, errrrrrrr, borrow it? Maybe Vince Cable is on holiday. (Moderater, please note that I said borrow - something that political parties like to do with good policies these days).

Post 26 Red Lenin
Glad you have crystal balls pity Bears-Stern didn't.

Fuel is not expensive its the taxation on it that makes it expensive or are you too smug to notice.

Nick

What do you mean IF the price rises above 125p, There are a lot of areas in this country where the price is already above this mark.

You need to get off the westminster lawn and have a look at the world outside.

What kind of majority would the conservatives have by polling 66% of the popular vote? 150-200 majority?

#20 RussellHolmstoel: "Diesel was about 100p a litre just before Christmas and is now 130p a litre.

Fuel duty is a static 56p so the difference on the VAT means that the government now takes an extra 5 pence per litre in revenue."

It's obviously (IMO) not worth responding to most of the un-evidenced vitriol on here, but this one made me smile a bit. IF the facts stated are correct (and I have no idea whether they are) it means that the price has gone up by 5% because of the Government, and by 25% due to factors outside their control. Doesn't it?

Just one more little fact, and an opinion - the Government has not been operating the fuel price escalator (introduced by the Tories, and quite right they were too) for some years now; and the Treasury can't start to think about giving back any of the price increase 'windfall' until they see what effect the price rise has on the economy, and subsequent tax take. They could just stop all road repairs and withdraw all the subsidies on commuter trans to allow them to cut fuel tax, of course.

Stand by for ritual comments about 'cutting waste'.

I'm an AA member. Have been for 44 years. Why didn't they ask me?

Oh, I see. It's not a 'scientific' sample poll at all, but the views of those members who feel strongly enough to sign up. A skewed result was guaranteed, which presumably suits the AA just fine, but I would have expected you to have looked at the provenance of these opinions a bit more critically, Nick.

@28 - And if you lower the taxation but demand remains the same the retail price will stay the same because the wholesale price will just go up. Only an idiot would sell something for a fiver when people will pay a tenner.

Reducing taxation will not affect the price at the pump. As the tax drops the oil companies will raise their slice. you'll end up paying the same and the government will look at something else to tax to make up for the reduction.

And as for being smug, I chose to listen to economists about the economy and economics as opposed to listening to politicians. There's nothing smug in that, in fact I find it incredible that people believe politicians understand about economics.

@18, RedLenin,

Ah yes, how remiss of me. The oil market is a cartel and does not work to the normal rules of supply and demand.

Actually the people making the most money out of the current situation are not the oil companies, although they are making record profits. No the people REALLY raking in the cash is the world bank and the IMF who are the middle men and go betweens between the oil producers and the oil producing nations. The bankers are fleecing us all.

One bit of press I saw yesterday were graphs showing that there is almost zero difference between 'actual production' and 'production capacity'.

i.e. Gordon can't flood the market with increased supply. This is just a pubilicty stunt.

Still - it does make a change to see Gordon looking more statesmanlike than his usual rabbit in headlights mode.

dhwilkinson @21:

Saudi Oil will not run out for some decades to come. Besides, would you 'invest' in Brown's Britain? The Saudis have invested - and will continue to invest - in British private sector assets, un-linked to government meddling.

They do, of course, have other 'investments' in our government in the form of Al-Yamamah and other shady deals.

The notion (also shared by Red Lenin@22 and elsewhere) that if tax on fuel was reduced then the nasty oil companies would raise their prices to 'fill the vacuum' and shaft us instead - is blatant stupidity that demonstrates a total incomprehension of market forces.

We have a choice of from whom to buy fuel. If it's expensive at one supplier, then we'll go elsewhere. (We don't have a choice of a more than one government - alas!).

As for 'environmental' concerns: sure, it's a good idea (medium to long term) to wean ourselves off oil. But as for punitive measures aimed at 'adapting my behaviour': I wish that we Britons had the right to bear arms - we'd soon demonstrate to our overbearing, nanny government how they ought to 'behave'. These people obviously forget that they are here to serve us, and that we pay their wages and over-generous expenses.

Oh - and don't ask me to worry about the 'planet'. It's doing just fine, thanks.

Well done Red Lenin for bringing real economics/logic into the debate (no, that's not supposed to sound patronising, I genuinely mean it).

I'm not an expert, but I did do A level economics at school so know the basics (which is more than Brown seems to know).

In my humble opinion your points raised so far all make sense to me and are sound.

I studied lots of theories at school when it comes to economics (yes, there is more than one theory, despite what Brown thinks), and it seems to me that Brown/Labour have been using all the theories which were proved as being mad/wrong over 50 years ago, rather than the ones which made sense, and that's why I get so annoyed with Brown/Labour; that anybody who's studied basic economics (or even just has some degree of common-sense) could do better than them.

Scepticmax @ 35 - You don't have a choice about your oil supplier. Most oil comes via OPEC and they are a protectionist cartel. The wholesale price is by and large set by them. If the barrel price goes to low for them they lower production, if it goes to high they raise it. If it's in an area they are comfortable with they leave it alone.

The retail price is set by the oil companies. They will charge whatever the market will bear. If they think that thay can get away with a tenner a gallon then that is what they will charge.

Because right at the start it's controlled by a cartel, then the consumer isn't really a free market consumer, they are just a tied in user.

A similar set-up is brewery tied houses in the pub game. No matter whether tax goes up or down, or wholesale prices go up or down or consumption goes up or down, the price at the beer pump in a teid house is dictated by protectionism.

In my opinion, Red Lenin's right, in that the normal rules of supply and demand don't apply 100% to petrol/oil prices. It's hideously distorted by a number of factors.

Yes, supply and demand rules will apply, but a lot of their effect will be negated/opposed (or enhanced depending on which way you look at it) by the other factors that Red Lenin mentions.

There isn't a 100% single cartel, but there is a very distorted market, which is made even more distorted by speculators (private and governmental)

As per Red Lenin's postings, another analogy would be BT's pricing of their fixed landlines which they lease to other phone companies; BT charge what the market will bear, and the "competition" doesn't really have a say in it.

How much of the fuel price is the result of speculation? On radio 4 this a.m. I heard some US pundit claiming half was (something I have been saying to anyone who will listen for some time).

Financial bubbles burst as all bubbles do, but the 'synthetic financial instruments' 'created' a huge bubble in money supply and this is now feeding through to inflation like it or not. There is no other way to absorb the excess cash.

It is unfortunate for us that our pay and pensions will not be allowed to rise to pay the new price (if the government has its way and unless your are a tanker driver, or civil servant.)

We will inevitably react by changing our habits to accommodate the price - change to more fuel efficient cars etc. - if we have the capital to do so. (In the next decade 70 mpg will become the norm!)

This may appear to be good for the environment but if it will reduce the effects of climate change I have my doubts (as a scientist and looking at the numbers). It is already beyond our control (if it ever was) and the best strategy is to roll with it and move to high ground!

Oil price shouldn't be an issue (increasing global production isn't as easy as just asking Saudi for more - with oil at $100 plus every oil man out there is producing as much as they can, believe me), but politicians and the media insist on keeping it high on the agenda. Politicians so they can appear to be doing something on the world stage, media so they don't have to think to hard about real issues.

It IS important, and will harm the economy and individuals, but GB has NOTHING to do with the oil price. We could have invested more in alternatives, we could have done lots of things, but that is the beauty of hindsight. Holding him responsible is just bundling oil with all of our other frustrations - many of which are really his fault.

No-one saw this coming. Not oil producers, not governments, not consumers. If they had we wouldn't be in this mess. Anyone who says they did is lying or was really lucky.

Please Nick, give us all a break and inform people rather than perpetuating these falacies.

re 40: ah, very true I think.

The trick would have been for brown to have said "ok, fuel's a bit expensive, and it looks like it'll probably stay that way give or take a few pence, and that was unexpected, so let's tweak the tax system a bit and try and ease the pain for you by, say, increasing the tax thresholds so you only start paying tax when you earn over, say, 8grand, and we'll pay for that by the extra vat receipts on fuel and various other things [too many other potential ways to do this to mention here]"

But, he can't/won't do that because he's got no spare money and has absolutely no idea what he's doing.

No 3 getridofgordonnow
"just let me keep more of my money in the first place" by reducing the basic rate of income tax to 20% has Mr Brown not done this?

Would those who want a reduction in fuel duty/tax please say which other taxes they would increase or services they would cut.

Me I would cut the number of doctors, nurses, policemen, and teachers down to the levels of the last government.

I would then stop all transport subsides, fares would at least double, but as I don't use the train/bus there's no problem.

Next I would stop subsides to the arts. How many would attend these events if they had to pay the full price. Let artist get real jobs and stop sponging off the tax payer, that would stop the rubish that's protrayed as art these days

Summing up, I want the government to stop paying out on services I don't use and, increase spending on the ones I need.

comment 13 had me laughing.

"Can't wait for the next keynote five year plan. Give me some targets. hospital beds up, school standards down. Universities not delivering. housing market collapsing. Social disintegration. Socialist dogma."

- ironic i thought. accusing labour of dogma, when everybody knows that labour for the last 11 years have been anything BUT dogmatic, not to mention how dogmatic that paragraph is! hardly a fair and reasoned interpretation of the last 11 years me thinks

The onerous taxation on petrol and diesel neatly illustrates long standing Government dishonesty.

I am very keen on hypothecated taxes - this means that when a tax is raised on something, then it is spent in that sector.

So, if taxes are raised on fuel then broadly speaking the revenue should be spent on transport infrastructure.

However, politicians mostly seem to hate hypothecated taxes ... and if you think about it for a moment, the reason becomes obvious.

Politicians love spending taxpayers money, preferably on their own 'pet' projects.

So they want to see the revenue go into a general 'pot' which they can then dip in to fund whatever takes their fancy.

Government honesty and taxation are sadly poles apart.

Ref 30.jimbrant

Jim

Stand your men down sir no salvo due today.

Yes you are right, it’s a simple calculation, its the Vat element on the increase. (33p today at my local garage) And your other calculations are right.

I also agree most of the recent price rise has nothing to do with the government. Speculation, shortages and fear would be my guess… But its not my field.

I merely sought to point out that the government is gaining huge amounts in extra revenue as a result of this rise through VAT and the N Sea.

If GB merely ring fenced this extra money for research and development of alternatives he would leap in my estimation. That would be some real prudence.
But you know that isn’t happening or going to happen, its going into the general coffers to fund the potato council …. Opps sorry those darn guns have a mind of their own.

The government doesn’t really have to wait to see how its going to affect the economy does it, they have models galore they can run and we can see it.

They could quite conceivably give road hauliers and business users a small rebate to counter the effects on inflation though.

#44 JohnConstable "However, politicians mostly seem to hate hypothecated taxes ... and if you think about it for a moment, the reason becomes obvious."

Indeed it does. If we followed your advice where would we get the money to pay for pensions? Or the NHS? or Education? or the armed forces? Or the police? There is no, or very little, money to be raised from those sectors, so any government has to move money from areas that are revenue raising to pay for them.

#45 RussellHolmstoel: "The government doesn?t really have to wait to see how its going to affect the economy does it, they have models galore they can run and we can see it."

I don't agree at all. Economic models are not perfect at fortune telling, and in this case the unknowns would be so significant that you would be at huge risk of spending money you don't in the event get. Darling has said that he will wait until the autumn when the picture will be a bit clearer to decide whether there is any overall 'windfall' to spend before he actually decides how to spend it. Seems eminently reasonable (even prudent) to me.

Nick, you say that Cameron HINTED, NOT COMMITTED, NOT SPELT OUT, PETROL FUND.

Nick, does that mean that Cameron will get rid of the Tax Credit System which helps the ones in need? If this is the case, if say for example a couple on low income, both in work and unfortunately one of them is made redundant, they will not get any help with reduction in tax, but they would receive help under the present Tax Credit regime. So according to you Cameron will be racking it.

The other question is. Does your assumption mean that he will be adjusting fuel tax according to the fuel price on a daily basis, because he needs to have at least a steady flow of income into the coffers, to continue with Labour's proposed future spending as promised by Cameron on various occasions?

What happened to the green agenda, Nick? The green lobby is saying that the hike in the price of fuel is a God send as it is making people change their habits and also reduce CO2. In actual fact CO2 had gone slightly down during the last two months.

This morning there was an interesting discussion on radio 2, as to whether people who work, would either prefer to tighten their belts and save their jobs and roofs over their heads, or go for an all out strike to make their employers and the Government for higher pay packets. Amazingly enough all the callers but one agreed that they do not wish to go back to the miserable days of the 80s and 90s, when such increases in slowing economies resulted in massive unemployment and very high interest rates. The person that disagreed was a lady who works in the public sector and she said that we would have wages inflation ONLY if the private sector ask for more pay rises, but that we would not have self inflicted inflation if the public sector ask for higher wages during a slowdown.

As an ex Bank Manager, I am aware that I would get more economic sense from my mover in the shed then from this lady that called BBC2 to put forward her idiotic theory about inflation or the causes of inflation.

Good night Nick.

Without wanting to point fingers, there is this wrong idea that unless this Government proposes saving money then it can't be done, otherwise it would have already done it. And only its allocation of spending and spending management is the best way. But hold on a minute, every year the Government delivers a budget. It raises personal allowances, occasionally adjusts tax bands upwards, and offers tax incentives here and there. Every year the tax structure changes. It may privatise things (Air Traffic Contol, Qineteq), or sell Government services (Companies House data, DVLA data), it may raise some taxes, it may benefit from an increased tax take because of increases in GDP, etc, and it may make efficiency savings under the Efficiency Agendas that continuoulsy operate in central and local government - there's a whole load of ways in which money is raised - or saved and this is a continuous process, day in day out.

Take a look at the publicly available National Audit Office reports (ie the reports that focus on Central Government spending) and those of the Public Accounts Committee and and take a look at what the Audit Commission thought of financial management in the NHS then can anyone say, with hand on heart, that only this Government knows best on how money can be allocated.

There isn't a scientific school of Government spending; there is no one way that fits best. There is the possibility that someone else in Government may make a better job of it.

15# Mikepko

I don't think this is the first time you've brought up the tax on tax arguement Mike and as before imply that this is something new (or should I say Nu on here) and one of Gordons Stealth Taxes.

I guess you know perfectly well that the way of taxing fuel is unchanged under Labour i.e vat on fuel duty. The only change is removal of the escalator which if kept would have led to even higher prices at the pump.

Its this sort of pernicious insinuation, known not to be true by the author (ie YOU) which devalues these sort of blogs.

Either that or you simply don't know what you're talking about. Which is it?

49# Terry

Glad you brought up the publicly available NAO data and Public Accounts committee,

This nicely blows a hole in the oft quoted myth that the Tories cant talk about their economic policies till "they get to see the books" when in power.

What Garbage (not you)

42# Anthony

Well said and of course sums up many on here.

However you should have wound up with something similar to JimBrant at 30# ie

"Stand by for ritual comments about 'cutting waste'".

#51 Thanks for not calling me garbage!

Although the central point of my comment was that the Government can't claim to have a special hold on what is the right or best way to raise and spend money, since the reports I refer to relate to the past spending and financial management, and not the future.

The only thing of contention I'd add is that right up until the general election of 1997, Tony and Gordon's constant refrain was they they could not comment on their plans because they need to see the books. I still think there is some merit in that argument.

#53, sorry one clarification - that Tony and Gordon could not comment "in detail" on their plans ... They were of course able to provide broad principles in relation to what people should expect of them.

Ref 47 jimbrant
No ok models arent perfect, but I think most economists will tell you that fuel will increase even the governments own rather narrow measure of inflation as fuel is factored into everything we consume one way or another.

Some business’s are on their knees, some trawler men for example have just tied up their boats, and have given up. Im not proposing across the board cuts in fuel prices, just a few strategically targeted rebates to key businesses.

The Autumn seems like a prudent timetable to take a long term view across the board especially given the current state of the government coffers, but you have to accept if government debt and current expenditure wasnt so high (through lack of prudence) then they could do more to ease the pain now.

That is precisely why debt should be reduced during the good times and not increased. That is where the lack of prudence comes in.

Nick,

I suppose somebody ought to comment on your 'P.S.' bit about a 'flurry' of speculation concerning rumours about moving Darling.

Looks like this particular story is just a bit of hot air kicked up by journalists doing opinion pieces. So much of our news these days appears to be based upon short term jounalistic opinion.

I guess that investigative journalism is expensive. Is there maybe a half way house, for instance, where media organisations adopt an Alistair Campbell style 'grid' and use the limited journalistic resources to follow a planned path of investigation, leaching bits of the story into the public domain over a period of weeks?

Ref Eatonrifle

Do you think there is scope for cutting waste from current goverment spending.

Do you think it is prudent to increase debt during a period of economic boom and hide even further debt in PFIs

Do you think every vegetable should have a QUANGO or do you think potatos are special.

57# Think we've been here before Russell. Is there waste of Course there is. Has there always been Yes, will there always be Yes.

As for the potato council, can't say I know a lot about it. Was it set up to help/promote British agriculture in some way, I can't be bothered to Google it.

Surely you must have noticed that every party not in power claim they posess the magic bullet of cutting "waste" then spend money on schemes of their own which others consider waste.

Don't think I'm being all that political in a party sense, I bet if you went to any European democracy the opposition and large sections of the population would say exactly the same as you. Once in power it aleways becomes somewhat more difficult as you then find out what the counter arguement is for keeping the respective Potato Councils.

One thing though Russell, what do feel about all the unemployment these cuts would inevitably create? No Problem?

# 46 Jim Brant wrote:

"If we followed your advice where would we get the money to pay for pensions? Or the NHS? or Education? or the armed forces? Or the police?"

In my opinion, all 'pensions' should be private in that they are totally owned by the individual, who contributes whatever he or she can, and if said person can persuade an enterprise to contribute as well, then fine.

Similarly, I think the individual should be able to choose whether he or she contributes to some State run services such as education and health, or alternatively, retains the money to purchase those services 'in the market'.

The Armed Forces should be funded via an EU-wide federal tax.

The local police force should, where possible, be funded locally via local taxes and be directly accountable to local people.

The police are one of the most notorious vested interest groups and must be directly accountable to the people they serve.

My view is that generally speaking taxes should be hypothecated because it imposes some financial discipline and accountability on politicians.

I emailed the PM at Downing Street about oil prices a couple of weeks ago, and by the way, I also emailed last week about Abu Qatada. I have had no response, I now see the email service is down for " maintenance issues". But I am glad to hear I can still use their "Twitter" service... says it all really!!!!!!

https://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page821.asp

#55 RussellHolmstoel: "if government debt and current expenditure wasnt so high (through lack of prudence) then they could do more to ease the pain now."

I think this has been done to death on here. You think that debt is high because you include PFIs and (bizarrely IMO) Northern Rock. I don't think it's high, because I agree with the independent Office for National Statistics and don't include those items. However, it is true that we are close to the government's own self-imposed limit, which is considerably lower than levels of debt in other countries.

The fundamental difference between us is, I think, that you would want to reduce levels of debt during the 'good times', whereas I approve of the government's policy of using the money instead to improve our basic infrastructure (ie by investing). You get the same sort of dichotomy in business, and I suppose ultimately it's a question of balance - and my opinion is that the balance over the past few years has been about right.

The Tories wouldn't have the same problem, of course, because they would have given the 'free' money away to (relatively) well off individuals like me in tax cuts, so they could neither reduce debt nor invest (enough). That sounds suspiciously like the situation I remember pre-1997, though then we also had the obscene idea that it was a good thing (or at least 'worth it') to pay large numbers of people to do nothing.

#59 JohnConstable: I'm just glad I don't live in your world. You make Thatcherism look like selfless compassion.

Of course The Chancellor's job is safe. Can you imagine GB inserting someone in this office who could later emerge to stab him him the back in the same way that he himself did not that long ago to what is turning out to be his better half. This office realistically has to be occupied by a yes man and not a future leadership contender in his eyes. He is a paid up member of the self preservation society.

jimbrant @61

Your phrase "The Tories wouldn't have the same problem, of course, because they would have given the 'free' money away to (relatively) well off individuals like me in tax cuts,.. "
displays an assumption that cutting tax is 'giving away money'...

It is the private sector that produces the bulk of nation's wealth. The government, the public sector and all those receiving benefits (of whatever kind and whether justified or not) - live off the wealth produced by others and confiscated as tax.

I wish people would remember that when they start carving up pies that other people made.

50 eatonblunderbus

Oh, you nasty person. I'm really upset now. And just because you are having a go at me for advancing something I said before on fuel tax. Something that is very relevant to this discussion.

I must be the only person to have ever said something twice in a political argument.

Except of course Brown who says the same thing time and time again in PMQs, even when it isn't true.

As for pernicious insinuations, I refer you to the collected speeches of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for prime examples. But of course, they had/have parliamentary privilege and can't be charged with telling porkies in the House, can they.

Sorry old bean, that one won't work.

63 waldorf

Never a truer word said on this blog.

58. Eatonrifle
Well yes but it’s the degree and the level of acceptance of it thats now so wrong.

The 29 million spent on thinking about the asylum centre. Any shame then… no the Home Office said “the whole episode had produced an overall positive impact for the public", because "officials have learned important lessons”

You just know that anyone that can put out a press release like that does not give a toss about how they spend your tax. Its a plain indictment of the culture.

As for the potato council, its there to encourage you to buy potatoes.

Any government can create 700 000 jobs by Quango building, that’s not getting rid of unemployment, especially when you pay the CEO more than the PM.

But as I said before Im not sure unemployment is low, there has been so much fiddling with the figures of unemployed and disability benefit over the years (by both parties) its hard to tell.

But if youre asking me do I want to pay someone to market potatoes then no I don’t, I want the potato farmers to do it. Just the way I market my business. You just know government wont be doing it well and the farmers would.
I ramble but my point is simple I believe that the Tories are more likely to cut waste than Labour.

I want the Boris effect. I want someone searching the corridors of power looking for those bottles of chateauneuf that were secreted away by the last administration. And not more of the same.

#64 ScepticMax:

I'd like to introduce you to JohnConstable. I think you might get on.

PS The engine on a train does all the work. The track just lies there doing nothing. But the engine without the track is just a useless lump of metal. NOT from Chairman Mao's liitle red book, SFAIK.

Jimbrant

I don't think the arguement is about how much is taxed and spent. Of course in 1997 more money needed to be spent on schools and hospitals etc.

The problem is that people do not think we have recieved value for money. A lot of people also think we are going to still be paying for years to come for contracts that will never deliver value for money.

At the moment our cost of living is rising through the roof. The public a furious that the 'Iron Chancellor' has not put anything away for a rainy day.

I could even begin to forgive that level of incompetence, if when Gordon became (caretaker) PM, he had a bunch of policies up his sleeve that were going to take the country somewhere.

The recent Social Mobility announcement is typical of the hollow thinking in number 10 at the moment. £200 pounds to help certain families achieve Social Mobility! What a laugh! 54p a day ain't going to go far.

A lot of people think that that projects such as Social Mobility would be better achieved by diverting money from Quangos and giving the cash directly to schools and hospitals to spend as they see fit, rather than wasted on endless Whitehall puff.

I could copy and paste the list of 50 odd 'educational' Quangos, but as people keep saying we've been over some of this ground before.

Weird thing is - about a year ago, I thought Gordon was looking all powerful and had a plan. I thought we were looking at at least another 10 years of Labour government. The problem is the policy cupboard seems empty.

The recent bloodletting release of Labour memoirs has placed Gordons hand on the knife in Tonys back. The public don't like backstabbing. We don't like someone who claims a mandate to govern, without having grasped the nettle of an election.

It is especially annoying when the toppling of one PM has been for the sole purpose of anothers ambition and then that person has no useful direction that they are taking the country.

Gordon could have secured years more Labour government, but the weels have come off the project and we now have a vicious circle of bad news.

The bad news for Gordon is that his previously good reputation as Chancellor is now being rubbished as his actions at Number 11 come home to roost.

64 scepticmax

A question we should all ask is why when GB is "giving" more and more money to public services are those services deteriorating. The answer is legislation.

The more legislation enacted the more staff are required. For targets, health and safety, etc.

The more staff, the more wages/salaries need to be paid. Add employer pension and NI contributions (about 12% pension I think) plus larger offices, uniforms, equipment, desks, etc and the cost rises very quickly.

With more staff the managers have a good case for an increased salary which means more NI and pension contributions.

Now the difference between private companies and public organisations, like councils, is that companies make profits and use the extra staff to increase those profits. They are productive.

Public organisations, on the other hand, have a fixed budget and have to absorb the extra costs caused by the legislation. But the staff have to be paid and the overheads paid. So there is less in the pot for services and cuts (sorry economies) have to be made. Result, old peoples' provision is lost, subsidies for organisations are reduced or stopped, and we complain.

When will politicians learn that all the extra legislation is killing public organisations.

And where has all the job creation come from - enlarging the public sector.

Economic madness!!

# 62

Ah, Mrs. Thatcher, the good, the bad and the ugly.

It was all there so I won't rehash it.

My starting point, politically speaking, is huge respect for the individual.

A lot of the stuff I come out with begins there, especially freedom of choice, which I think English people are particularly keen on.

However, there has to be some 'community' to produce a coherent society.

That was a big shock when I first visited America in the 1980's and discovered that, certainly at the local level, it was not dog-eat-dog, but very communal.

In fact, they had more of a sense of community than us English.

When we regain our proper English political identity around 2010/11 then I hope we can bolster our sense of community.

As far as I can see it the argument against financial prudence goes along the lines of if it's there spend it on those projects that need it and sod the need to be setting money aside for a rainy day. This kind of short term approach is spectacularly unwise as current events are now beginning to highlight. The kitty does not have to be handed out as sweetening tax cuts as suggested but can be set aside so as to be available for future emergencies. For householders that could be a new roof, a new boiler or any similar unexpected project. For the government it could be a blip in economic circumstances. Too often these issues are presented in black and white party political terms and neglect the need for plain common sense.

re: 42 anthonyagain

""just let me keep more of my money in the first place" by reducing the basic rate of income tax to 20% has Mr Brown not done this"

err, no, not for the poorest people. for the poorest people he doubled their tax rate from 10% to 20% overnight and then asked them to beg for some of it back via tax credits which a lot of people can't claim.

for the lucky people who did win out from the 22 to 20pct drop that's more than outweighed by the tax increases elsewhere such as national insurance and council tax.

re: various other postings...

There are various postings on the BBC blogs generally that continually go on about the labour line of "you can't maintain or improve public services unless you throw extra money at them" argument. I refuse to debate that point anymore because anyone who's not already convinced by the perfectly reasonable arguments that have been discussed over and over on all the BBC blogs about that will never understand the economic/logical realities and/or theories which make that labour line so self-evidently wrong.

A lot of other postings are mentioning the kind of alternatives to "just throw money at it" that I mean, but they're getting lambasted by the Brownites who refuse to listen to reasonable argument.

True, no economic theory is perfect and/or can stand on its own, but please, Brownites, please, at least admit that there is more than the one theory of "throw more money at it" that works in this world and that should be used for the good of the country.

Re 36@scepticmax

Market forces is supply and demand. While the demand for oil outstrips supply, the saudis can sell to whoever pays the most. The country CANT just go to another supplier. As it is the same for them It is a Sellers market. Or am I just being idiotic? I see several others disagree with you.

From your aggressive defensive tone on this subject, you appear to be a serious motoring addict in denial.


awa_the_noo@8 Mr Beans back I see.

addendum to my previous posting:
yes, I do know that they "changed their mind" over doubling the rate, and that they did end up with a half-baked compromise that still adversely effects a lot of people and that ended up costing the tax payer generally around an extra 2.7billion.
Bear in mind that Brown (not Darling, he's just a puppet) only changed his mind and came up with the half-baked solution following a year of planning, followed by a year of notice, followed by a month or so of his job being threatened.
It was only when Brown's personal job was being threatened that he finally caved in.

#71 JohnConstable: "That was a big shock when I first visited America in the 1980's and discovered that, certainly at the local level, it was not dog-eat-dog, but very communal."

Have you ever been to Duke University? and its environs? Or the Capitol, and walked the mile or so to Brown University? It's all very well talking about community spirit in small town (white) America, but look under the surface. And if you don't believe in dog-eat-dog don't post as if you do.

#72 waldorf29: No. Putting money into infrastructure is not short-termism. It is prudence for the long-term. Certainly lack of investment in infrastructure is the opposite of prudence for the long-term.

Too often these issues are presented with no concern for the long term, because we have elections every 5 years or so. And a media that can't see beyond the end of this week.

Getrid...@73 A lot of money has been spent on putting right years of underinvestment by previous governments.

Underspending often leads to problems that cost more to solve than if there was sufficient funding in the first place.

As was proved by the last Conservative Government. Investing is not throwing money at a problem.

Nick,

Don't you get frustrated when, despite your best efforts, you see the ICM poll figures published in the Guardian of all newspapers, and you read their economic correspondent's take on Bottler's year.

Those two items don't seem to match the glowing picture of Bottler that you keep trying to portray.

If it weren't for the Guardian et al telling the silly public about ICM results and other obstructive and negative remarks, you might be able to get out the message that you really want about Bottler the Magnificent.

You seem to have joined the losing team when you chose to back Bottler. There's still time, though, for you to jump ship to the LibDems - they are only trailing Labour by a whisker, and could do with your support.

Ref 77 jimbrant

If your salary doubled over the next 5 years would you:

1 Double your overdraft and use it to the max
2 Hide even more debt on your credit cards
3 Borrow additional funds from your pension fund
4 Increase your mortgage massively
5 Use some of the extra income to reduce your existing debt a little.
6 Save a little for a rainy day.

Would you ever use the term prudent for someone who did all of 1-4

#4 "Really, we've got nothing to offer the Arabs".

Not true. Another batch of cut-price Eurofighters (possibly with a few bundles of unused banknotes attached) would do nicely.

I think the following from the Guardian on the ICM poll says a lot.

"The figures record the dramatic decline in Labour fortunes since Brown took over as leader. A year ago, Labour had a four-point lead over the Tories in the June Guardian/ICM poll. Support for the party, at 39%, was 14 points higher than today.

Voters also think Brown has failed personally as prime minister. Asked to rate his performance on a scale of one to 10, voters give Brown only 3.94 on average. Almost a quarter, 23%, give him a one.

Even people who remain loyal to Labour are unconvinced by the prime minister's performance: only 4% give him full marks. Among people who voted Labour in 2005, many of whom now back other parties, 54% give him five out of 10 or less."

I think that says it all.

77:
Put very simply you can't spend money that you don't have. It's basic economics. That's what happens to all those poor people who rack up debts because they are seduced by advertising and buy things they don't really need because it's on offer or they just want it. They either end up in the arms of money lenders with extortionate and ever increasing interest rates or take out new credit cards to service their shortfall and end up with a massive debt that they are unable to pay off. What on earth is left for that rainy day? Zilch! If you can't afford that shiny new car stick with the old one until you can. It's not rocket science. If the money had actually been spent exclusively on the infrastructure I might agree with you but it hasn't. A lot of it has been wasted on a bottomless pit of expenditure that has not been proved to be value for money. It's money growing on trees as far as I can make out and it's not been spent wisely in my view. Furthermore it's our money. The Government is just the middle man.

83 waldorf

Totally agree.

In my family and my wife's its taken for granted that you don't buy what you can't afford. For my mother it is only ever pay cash.

We have a credit card that we pay off every month. It is also a loyalty card with vouchers for goods that are used for the odd bottle of wine.

#82 mikepko

I think they are right about NuLabour membership. Not many weeks ago I went onto a NuLabour blog site and the following thread, about NuLabours money problems, went like the following;


As a continuation of that, I've always thought that if Labour suffers a catastrophic defeat at the next election, a new party with a new name might be the way to go.

Light at the end of the dark, dark tunnel. Create a new national organisation which the current leadership has not tainted. It's like Ramsay McDonald all over again with these incompetent goons isn't it?

If one were being totally brutal about this, wouldn't we be better just recreating the party and leaving the old debts behind with levy, blair, brown etc.?

Why bother finding £24 million when you can just leave it parked in the old vehicle and tell the lenders and the leadership to go "roger" themselves.

When you owe little enough that you can pay back it is your problem but when you owe more than you can afford it becomes the lenders problem. The only people who lose out are the leadership and the lenders and to be frank, "stuff 'em".

My father bless his soul never in his life countenanced paying for something on the never never because he argued that this was tantamount to pouring money into someone else's pocket. I didn't follow his good advice however and for years was burdened with an ever increasing credit card debt (Access) which was eventually paid off. Granted these days it is very difficult or even impossible to buy a home or a new car without finance but as long as you can manage the monthly repayments that's okay. Many people run up a credit card debt but pay it off at the end of the month. This is the position with Manchester United right now. They have a massive debt but they are able to manage the interest payments as well as put a little money aside as a result of their earnings. When the owners eventually sell off the club it will probably go to a consortium that are wealthy enough to either eliminate or take on the debt.
It might be argued that GB is able to manage our debt but without access to the books I'm not certain. What I do know is that we have to spend taxpayers money wisely or our children will be unnecessarily taxation burdened long into the future. With inflation also on the rise that doesn't make for a very pretty picture in the long term.

85:
This is exactly the tactic they use for failing schools in my area of Surrey. Change it's name and it's fortunes may pick up is the thinking behind it. After all if you give a dog a bad name it tends to stick even if it behaves itself or changes it's behaviour for the good.

83 Waldorf

WC Fields had it right

"Income one dollar, expenditure 95 cents result happiness.

Income one dollar, expenditure one dollar and 5 cents, result misery."

Of course, in those days there weren't such things as credit cards.

I firmly believe that two of the most important things to teach kids (sorry young people or is it trainee adults - ugh) are compund interest and percentages. Once they undertand these they are equipped for financial security.

Sadly, according to statistics, only 50% of the population undersatnd percentages, and I imagine fewer understand compound interest.

It is a recipe for financial disaster.

85 Roll on 2010

Could this be a case of the rats deserting the sinking Labour ship?

#89 mikepko

Looks like it!

One other posting I found of interest was the following. It concerned union disaffiliation from NuLabour during the recent trade union conferences, it was as follows;


GMB and UNISON won't. CWU might after the way they were screwed over last year.

I'd love to say I was shocked by Brown's craven defence of the incompetent Royal Mail management and his "get back to work" attack on postal staff (Labour Party affiliates) but unfortunately nothing about New Labour surprises me any more.

The blogger was called - e10rifles. I am not sure whether thats a play on words or not?

#46 jimbrant said in relation to hypothecated taxes:

Indeed it does. If we followed your advice where would we get the money to pay for pensions? Or the NHS? or Education? or the armed forces? Or the police? There is no, or very little, money to be raised from those sectors, so any government has to move money from areas that are revenue raising to pay for them

*************************

Sorry to drag this comment back up, I actually disagree with Jimbrant and agree with hypothecated taxes. However a little tounge in cheek, but we may have to restate the reason why we pay Income tax, I mean i dont think it would work wonders for the EU if we had to declare war on France due to hypothecated taxes. However i have just found your source of funding for the armed forces and education etc.

Also should the NHS be funded from National Insurance contributions?

Granted this is all hypothetical, but surely everything we pay for has related tax (the money from that tax may go elsewhere)

Ta

# 91

I do believe that in the beginning National Insurance (NI) was actually meant to be a hypothecated tax.

I understand that it was supposed to be spent exclusively on the NHS and pensions.

However, politicians soon corrupted the whole idea.

Today the NI tax, 11% employees plus the 'topline' bit you never see printed on your payslip, namely the 12.2% employers 'contribution', simply get poured straight into the politicians pork-barrel.

To alleviate the pressure at the pumps why not remove VAT from fuel. Alternatively raise or add VAT on other items to give the user the option of buying or not.

#92

I guess also it would be far to complicated for any politician in the cabinet to run more than one money pot without losing it. I get the impression all parties dont really know what they are doing.

Re Number 93.

I may be mistaken, but the ability to raise or lower VAT can not be done WITHOUT the full authority/ permission of the EU.

I believe TB signed over that power a few years back in exchange for them not to be too beastly to him in public.

If I am wrong, someone is sure to point out the truth, if any.

Nick,
The torys always hint at policy direction but never have any substance, its easy to do that! Has it got that bad you've got to suggest policy for them? Nonsense speculation, for a nonsense tory party!

#95

I think it is unlikely that the national Government would have to ask the EU for permission to change VAT rates.

However, I believe that the ordinary VAT rate of 17.5% in the so-called 'UK' is less than the EU average.

Which immediately rings an alarm bell in this posters mind ... Government a bit short of cash ... hmmm ... raise the VAT rate and then claim it is still only the EU average.

Never under-estimate the rat-like cunning of cash-strapped politicians.

Gee-wiz Nick,

A poll published in the BBC-Bible (The Gruniad) and yet no mention within the political section...! Nothing to hide, surely...?

Millionaire Stuart Wheeler says he will appeal against a High Court decision to oppose his bid for a UK referendum on Lisbon Treaty.

You've lost man, give up, you've lost.

THE HIGH COURT SPEAKS.

As for VAT, be reminded that VAT was 8% in 1980 and thanks to the Tories it shot up to 17.5%. We do not require permission to increase VAT, but one requires to obtain permission from the EU to reduce VAT.

Have a nice day Nick.

But Gordon Brown is responsible for the price of petrol having risen so high, in sterling terms.

The pound has been very weak, down 15% in twelve months against the euro, matching only the US dollar in terms of currency weakness. If the world perceived we had a stronger economy then our currency would not be so weak.

If sterling had moved in line with the euro over the past year, the litre of unleaded that I purchased last night would have cost me 102p not 120p.

Unfortunately, as less money would be leaving my pocket, then less would be finding its way to the Treasury. So, perhaps Gordon Brown is less concerned than he says he is.