MSE News: Labour calls for fuel duty rise postponement

Former_MSE_Helen

"Ed Balls is urging the Government to use the Olympics underspend to cover the cost of scrapping an increase in fuel duty..."

Read the full story:
Labour calls for fuel duty rise postponement

Trebor16

"The Government should be giving our economy a boost – not clobbering families, businesses and pensioners just at the wrong time."

How easily Balls forgets how his government clobbered us with loads of additional taxes and a legacy of debt that will take decades to pay off, thanks to their economic mismanagement.

Mrs_Arcanum

Of all the ideas that Labour have come up with, this is actually sensible.

worried_jim

Yeah right. I could just see Labour helping the motorist if they were in power (thank God there not). What a bunch of two faced back stabbers.

Foxy-Stoat_3

Based using a 40mpg car the annual "savings" the Labour's are striving for are as follows, per car:

6,000 miles a year = £20.25
12,000 miles a year = £40.50
25,000 miles a year = £84.38

Well zip-a-de-do-da, I am sure if you bought a couple of rounds of drinks at a wedding you would spend more than this !!!!

I am sure the folk who actual drive the cars are losing more money each year by the increases in energy bills and other everyday items.

prowla

Erm, how can any Olympics underspend be specifically offset against one item?
Surely it should just go back into the general pot of government money and thereby reduce the extra that is required.

RDF

In 2003 57% of drivers exceeded the speed limit on motorways, in 2010 this was down to 49% and is still falling. Main reason for this is increased fuel costs. If people wish to save money then they have an option of reducing their speeds (25% fuel saving if speed is reduced from 70 to 50) - source Economist June 9th. The government need money to pay for all that debt we have incurred by bad management in the past, the rich have bigger cars that drink more petrol. Sounds to me like the ideal way of collecting more. Come on Labour think through what you are saying and be responsible rather than appealing to base instincts of everyone to get votes.

dtaylor84

Perhaps the £500million underspend should be used to offset the £3.5billion overspend last month, from unexpected borrowing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/26/uk-government-borrowing-higher-expected

Rotor

What underspend? We were told when London bid for the olympics that it would cost around £2.5 billion. It's now nearer £9 billion.
It's a 3.5x overspend now rather than 4x overspend. Move along ; No savings to see here!

Herzlos

RDF wrote: »

the rich have bigger cars that drink more petrol. Sounds to me like the ideal way of collecting more. Come on Labour think through what you are saying and be responsible rather than appealing to base instincts of everyone to get votes.

Well, no.

The rich can afford to buy more expensive cars which use less fuel. The poor are generally forced to keep whatever car they already have, which being a bit older may not be very economical at all. 40mpg may be common now but there are a lot of older petrol cars, particularly full-size family cars (now deemed gas guzzlers) that manage a lot less, especially if they are having mechanical problems.

So the people being hit by fuel increases are the folk who can't afford to upgrade to more economical cars.

The knock-on effect is then that people will drive less, or spend money on fuel, meaning they have less money or less opportunity to put money back into the economy via shopping or leisure spending.

pooch

MSE_Helen wrote: »

"Ed Balls is urging the Government to use the Olympics underspend to cover the cost of scrapping an increase in fuel duty..."

Cost of Olympics to spiral to £24bn... TEN TIMES higher than 2005 estimate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092077/London-2012-Olympics-cost-spiral-24bn--10-TIMES-higher-2005-estimate.html#ixzz1ytvEmhYu



With accountancy skills like that, is it no wonder the last administration left this country on it's knees?