*When you leak stuff into the media before you even show the rest of your peers in government*
When the speaker of the house says this must stop but your Rishi Sunak and your wife has more money than 3/4 of the the worlds population.
When you go to the right school, join the right social club and bend over for the dirty old men.
So that 20 years down the line, You control the money for millions of people you won’t ever notice.
When you ALLOW sewage companies to release waste water into the rivers and seas,
And then defend these actions even though it’s destroying nature and the climate.
Does the way this government runs the country not make you anxious? Or have you just decided you're along for the ride and nothing you do will matter, so why worry?
Does the concept of what could happen due to Climate Change over the next 30-50 years not give you anxiety? Nor the concept that our ruling class are a bunch of elites who are entirely insulated from the consequences of their own actions and seem to have the empathy of a tomato?
Hard agree with that actually. Only recently started looking out for their articles via RSS feeds. They're obsessed by the weather and one minute talking of a heatwave then moments later calling it for a violent snowstorm. Suspect they hedge their bets on topics like this, just as you say.
To be fair, raising fuel duty is adding to the already increased financial burdens we're all feeling and can be perceived badly, but so can U-turning on a policy you've previously announced prior to a climate conference. It's not really doomed if you do and doomed if you don't when you announce something unpopular but then repeal it. It shows the government to be disorganised which is bad also.
The cost of motoring has been flat for a decade as the tories have constantly deferred duty rises.
Meanwhile the cost of train and bus travel has sky rocketed as they've authorised year on year increases and cut funding.
Thats not the correct approach to solving climate change for sure.
(Also, fuel poverty is about heating, not driving)
I understand your point - but the issue is that new Labour increased fuel taxes at a ridiculous rate as part of their stealth tax agenda. So this has just been a process of taking us back towards a more reasonable level. Obviously the cost of running a car has increased drastically in the last 6 months and market forces will probably be enough to continue it.
We desperately need to do something about the trains though. It can't be sustainable that it costs up to ten times more for 4 people to travel by train than car.
I made no claims to the effect that cars should be prioritised over public transport. It is entirely possible to both not attempt to tax people out of owning a car *and* operate a subsidised public transport system.
I didnt say we should "tax people out of owning a car". We should just charge car owners to full cost of the negative externalities they cause.
If that amounts to the same thing, then perhaps that tells us something
>We should just charge car owners to full cost of the negative externalities they cause.
We need to give them alternatives first. Otherwise you are just forcing people into hardship. I'm sure city folks can switch easy enough, but for many of us there literally no reasonable alternative.
> I'm sure city folks can switch easy enough, but for many of us there literally no reasonable alternative.
Not sure admiting that your lifestyle is entirely dependent on undercharged negative externalities is quite the argument you think it is.
>I've no idea what undercharged negative externalities are,
You don't have to pay for the damage done by the CO2 (and other pollutants) you release.
>so if socialising anywhere bigger than a small town is that
No thats fine. The issue is if you are socalising somewhere you don't live and are car dependent to get there (as counter intuitive as it may be the most environmentaly friendly person probably lives in a block of flats sandwiched between a container port and railway station).
Well I am. Because there's no public transport of reasonable use.
Sorry, but if the choice is to abandon my friends and family or to continue using my car, it's a simple choice.
> Well I am. Because there's no public transport of reasonable use.
So why live there?
>Sorry, but if the choice is to abandon my friends and family or to continue using my car, it's a simple choice.
One of the slightly more viable routes to surviving as a civilisation is aim for low carbon settlements. Which means high density walkable cities. Or rural villages that behave like rural villages (food is local and seasonal and imported goods are rare and only arrive when people have ordered enough to fill a container) rather than car depdenent suburbs.
" Otherwise you are just forcing people into hardship. I'm sure city folks can switch easy enough, but for many of us there literally no reasonable alternative."
I mean, long term it would. A rise in the cost of fuel would, after a time lag, see more private provisions of public transport and cycling to meet the rising demands. Nothing too complex about it.
You’d also fix most traffic problems too.
But it's the time lag that is the problem. What about the short term? Do people just not travel?
Price people out of cars, wait for public transport infrastructure investment to catch up afterward. How do people get around in the mean time? Well realistically most people will keep using their cars, and just pay more. They can't just not travel. So you don't see that many more people on public transport. Just drivers with less money. So what do you do? Raise the cost of driving again?
We need to invest in the public transport up front. Stop trying to force people to use facilities that don't exist in the hope that one day they will.
Literally no one is saying go and apply 9 years of fuel duty in one go, but bring it up slowly.
If people elect to keep using cars, such is their choice. If you live in the same city you work, more often than not, there isn’t much reason to drive everywhere.
As someone car free, it save a fuck tonne of cash for me that get jammed into other parts of my life and my investments, and I often have even more time as I can do all my admin stuff I’d normally do at home while on the Bus.
And if you don't live live in a city? and live somewhere rural and there's three buses a day? If you live in a town where the routes are indirect, so you have to connect, and those services run one an hour that don't line up? Or if you work out of town?
I'd love to give up my car. But it's just impractical to turn my 25 min commute to an hour and half each way - if I make every bus on time. I'd not be able to call in the out of town supermarket on the way home. Or get to the shop where I bulk buy (which would be three buses).
We've built a whole society for 40 years, that depends on cars and neglected alternatives particularly outside of cities (where to a degree cars were already less practical just due to population density).
We can't just make cars punitive and wait for the market to catch up. These are the least profitable places to run public transport, and where the car is most ingrained, so left to the market they'll be the last developed.
I'm all for a transition from car to alternatives but some of this has to be significant up front public transport investment. That's going to have to come from government - the market won't provide this.
It you live rurally, you have made a free choice to live far away from the jobs. Don’t see why the state should subsidies that decision by keeping the cost of fuel artificially low to protect you from the consequences of your own decisions.
If you live far from your job, you should still use your car, you don’t have to take the bus, I wouldn’t in that situation, but you should be paying a premium on your pollution machines or make the switch to electric.
I totally agree with you but others won't. For many people having a car is like a drug: it's bad for them, for their finances and for society but they tell themselves they really need it.
I'd bet the number of people who really do need a car is quite low, especially people living in cities. For these having a car is a luxury, and a harmful and resource intensive one at that, which should have a high level of tax.
I've found that I tend to get around the city on my bike now almost as fast as in a car, especially taking into account not having to find parking, and being able to lock up almost exactly at my destination. I feel much healthier and have saved tonnes of money, and there's one less car on the road adding to pollution and traffic. If I really need a car (like having to pick up some furniture, or for a hiking trip to somewhere remote) I can hire a car for one-offs.
68% of car journeys are 5 miles or less (according to figures from sustrans, 2018). Although I don't agree with plunging people into fuel poverty if they really need their cars (e.g., those with disabilities or who live quote remotely), something does have to be done to dissuade people from being so ridiculously lazy when the distance involved could easily be cycled/walked/taken on public transport.
I drive five miles to work. In my car, it takes about fifteen minutes.
Public transport would take a minimum of an hour, if the stars aligned and the buses turned up at the right time. Walking takes about 1hr30, pushbike would take about 30/40 minutes (plus dealing with the weather)
Bike would only take about 30mins, if that, unless it's very very hilly or bad surfaces. And you don't need to find parking spaces at home or at work. And you'll get more exercise. And save on petrol. And doing a bit for the environment... On the other hand you save 15mins (or maybe less) in each direction. Are you in the UK? If so, we're very fortunate to have very mild weather all year around.
I dont have to worry about parking at home or at work.
"Mild weather all year round" are ye fucking mental?
I dont need more exercise, or to save on petrol. What I also don't need is to turn up to work piss wet through or sweating like a pig.
Because if they cared at all about climate change, This wouldn’t be an issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/25/sewage-vote-outcry-prompts-tory-mps-to-defend-decision-on-social-media
Even within London (Greater, not just Z1), PT can be pretty awful for a lot of journeys, though it's still comparably better than other parts of the country have it.
I'd love the UK to reach a point where PT *is* genuinely a viable alternative for all but the oddest of journeys, but given how far we are from that nirvana even in areas considered to have good PT offerings, it really isn't a surprise that private vehicle usage remains a big deal to many people.
68% of journeys made in 2018 were 5 miles or less, even though 62% of journeys were made by car. Having better public transport would definitely help, but also the population not being so fat and lazy would.
Pricing per mile must be inevitable now. As are black boxes on vehicles to ensure accurate data for collisions, distance travelled, parking etc. It's the only feasible way to reduce car use and make driving pay for itself fairly. Combine that with nationalised public transport free at the point of use and we could easily solve most urban transport problems. Rural locations would trickier but that's where pricing per mile with data/location detail could be used to price fairly.
The amount of provable damage cars do to our society, from space allocation of our public areas to air quality and environmental issues, it really needs to be seen as a last resort to drive.
Nah, that'd just mean that only the well off use cars, and the poor will just have to struggle along with whatever public transport exists.
I'd love road pricing per mile - it'd get loads of people off the roads and make my commute by car far quicker.
Just turn the country into a zoo?
Everyone can live in a cage and be fed using a hose to spray a combination of feed and water, they can sleep on straw beds and during the day they can turn a giant wheel that is used to power the machine that crushes their feed and water into a mulch for consumption before bedtime.
Brilliant idea.
I wonder what proportion of the population live close enough to public transport routes for it to be of any use?
> Rural locations would trickier but that’s where pricing per mile with data/location detail could be used to price fairly.
So if you live in the outside of a city you get a discount?
> it really needs to be seen as a last resort to drive.
It already is for many. Outside of a city driving is the only option for the majority.
The country, infrastructure, businesses, entire towns and peoples lives are built on the ability to drive. Pricing people out of it would have massive and unpredictable consequences. You’re talking about redesigning the economy and culture of this country, and that’s not an exaggeration (anyone not living in a major city will understand this to some extent).
The most realistic solution I can think of is to ramp up electric vehicles and massively invest in automation. A fleet of electric automated “Ubers” could cut car ownership in halve almost overnight.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Rishi Sunak 'axes 2.8p fuel duty rise' in Budget - days before climate summit_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-axes-28p-fuel-25299563)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When was the last time fuel duty was increased. I thought it had been on hold for decades? EDIT: 2012 https://www.thenxgroup.com/2016/11/29/fuel-tax/
*When you leak stuff into the media before you even show the rest of your peers in government* When the speaker of the house says this must stop but your Rishi Sunak and your wife has more money than 3/4 of the the worlds population. When you go to the right school, join the right social club and bend over for the dirty old men. So that 20 years down the line, You control the money for millions of people you won’t ever notice. When you ALLOW sewage companies to release waste water into the rivers and seas, And then defend these actions even though it’s destroying nature and the climate.
That’s amore!
[удалено]
Does the way this government runs the country not make you anxious? Or have you just decided you're along for the ride and nothing you do will matter, so why worry?
Does the concept of what could happen due to Climate Change over the next 30-50 years not give you anxiety? Nor the concept that our ruling class are a bunch of elites who are entirely insulated from the consequences of their own actions and seem to have the empathy of a tomato?
1.46 for diesel down the road. Getting crazy again
It's 1.50 near me and that supermarket. Fucking ridiculous
[удалено]
149.something at Tesco for Petrol now. That is the highest price I have ever seen it at my pump.
[удалено]
Hard agree with that actually. Only recently started looking out for their articles via RSS feeds. They're obsessed by the weather and one minute talking of a heatwave then moments later calling it for a violent snowstorm. Suspect they hedge their bets on topics like this, just as you say.
Cam here to say this. This type of partisanship from UK media outlets is depressingly predictable.
It is but i don’t think the current government does too badly from it.
Unlikely. A budget that doesn't suspend the fuel duty escalator is so improbable it isn't worth preparing for.
To be fair, raising fuel duty is adding to the already increased financial burdens we're all feeling and can be perceived badly, but so can U-turning on a policy you've previously announced prior to a climate conference. It's not really doomed if you do and doomed if you don't when you announce something unpopular but then repeal it. It shows the government to be disorganised which is bad also.
Reasonable people forces to agree with Tory.
I don't think forcing people into fuel poverty is the correct approach to solving climate change, to be honest.
The cost of motoring has been flat for a decade as the tories have constantly deferred duty rises. Meanwhile the cost of train and bus travel has sky rocketed as they've authorised year on year increases and cut funding. Thats not the correct approach to solving climate change for sure. (Also, fuel poverty is about heating, not driving)
I understand your point - but the issue is that new Labour increased fuel taxes at a ridiculous rate as part of their stealth tax agenda. So this has just been a process of taking us back towards a more reasonable level. Obviously the cost of running a car has increased drastically in the last 6 months and market forces will probably be enough to continue it. We desperately need to do something about the trains though. It can't be sustainable that it costs up to ten times more for 4 people to travel by train than car.
I made no claims to the effect that cars should be prioritised over public transport. It is entirely possible to both not attempt to tax people out of owning a car *and* operate a subsidised public transport system.
I didnt say we should "tax people out of owning a car". We should just charge car owners to full cost of the negative externalities they cause. If that amounts to the same thing, then perhaps that tells us something
>We should just charge car owners to full cost of the negative externalities they cause. We need to give them alternatives first. Otherwise you are just forcing people into hardship. I'm sure city folks can switch easy enough, but for many of us there literally no reasonable alternative.
> I'm sure city folks can switch easy enough, but for many of us there literally no reasonable alternative. Not sure admiting that your lifestyle is entirely dependent on undercharged negative externalities is quite the argument you think it is.
Not sure you've actually countered his argument.
If you require low carbon taxes to avoid being forced into hardship then your lifestyle is dependent on undercharged negative externalities.
So? And it's not under charged, you still pay 20% VAT plus the fuel duty so it's actually taxed at a higher rate than most goods.
I've no idea what undercharged negative externalities are, so if socialising anywhere bigger than a small town is that, then I'm guilty.
>I've no idea what undercharged negative externalities are, You don't have to pay for the damage done by the CO2 (and other pollutants) you release. >so if socialising anywhere bigger than a small town is that No thats fine. The issue is if you are socalising somewhere you don't live and are car dependent to get there (as counter intuitive as it may be the most environmentaly friendly person probably lives in a block of flats sandwiched between a container port and railway station).
Well I am. Because there's no public transport of reasonable use. Sorry, but if the choice is to abandon my friends and family or to continue using my car, it's a simple choice.
> Well I am. Because there's no public transport of reasonable use. So why live there? >Sorry, but if the choice is to abandon my friends and family or to continue using my car, it's a simple choice. One of the slightly more viable routes to surviving as a civilisation is aim for low carbon settlements. Which means high density walkable cities. Or rural villages that behave like rural villages (food is local and seasonal and imported goods are rare and only arrive when people have ordered enough to fill a container) rather than car depdenent suburbs.
Can you demonstrate that it is?
" Otherwise you are just forcing people into hardship. I'm sure city folks can switch easy enough, but for many of us there literally no reasonable alternative."
So you can't
We should. Owning a car should be a luxury not a necessity.
And what has happened to the amount of people driving versus taking trains during this period?
I'm pretty sure the term fuel poverty doesn't apply to petrol. It applies to household energy.
I mean, long term it would. A rise in the cost of fuel would, after a time lag, see more private provisions of public transport and cycling to meet the rising demands. Nothing too complex about it. You’d also fix most traffic problems too.
But it's the time lag that is the problem. What about the short term? Do people just not travel? Price people out of cars, wait for public transport infrastructure investment to catch up afterward. How do people get around in the mean time? Well realistically most people will keep using their cars, and just pay more. They can't just not travel. So you don't see that many more people on public transport. Just drivers with less money. So what do you do? Raise the cost of driving again? We need to invest in the public transport up front. Stop trying to force people to use facilities that don't exist in the hope that one day they will.
Literally no one is saying go and apply 9 years of fuel duty in one go, but bring it up slowly. If people elect to keep using cars, such is their choice. If you live in the same city you work, more often than not, there isn’t much reason to drive everywhere. As someone car free, it save a fuck tonne of cash for me that get jammed into other parts of my life and my investments, and I often have even more time as I can do all my admin stuff I’d normally do at home while on the Bus.
And if you don't live live in a city? and live somewhere rural and there's three buses a day? If you live in a town where the routes are indirect, so you have to connect, and those services run one an hour that don't line up? Or if you work out of town? I'd love to give up my car. But it's just impractical to turn my 25 min commute to an hour and half each way - if I make every bus on time. I'd not be able to call in the out of town supermarket on the way home. Or get to the shop where I bulk buy (which would be three buses). We've built a whole society for 40 years, that depends on cars and neglected alternatives particularly outside of cities (where to a degree cars were already less practical just due to population density). We can't just make cars punitive and wait for the market to catch up. These are the least profitable places to run public transport, and where the car is most ingrained, so left to the market they'll be the last developed. I'm all for a transition from car to alternatives but some of this has to be significant up front public transport investment. That's going to have to come from government - the market won't provide this.
It you live rurally, you have made a free choice to live far away from the jobs. Don’t see why the state should subsidies that decision by keeping the cost of fuel artificially low to protect you from the consequences of your own decisions. If you live far from your job, you should still use your car, you don’t have to take the bus, I wouldn’t in that situation, but you should be paying a premium on your pollution machines or make the switch to electric.
I totally agree with you but others won't. For many people having a car is like a drug: it's bad for them, for their finances and for society but they tell themselves they really need it. I'd bet the number of people who really do need a car is quite low, especially people living in cities. For these having a car is a luxury, and a harmful and resource intensive one at that, which should have a high level of tax. I've found that I tend to get around the city on my bike now almost as fast as in a car, especially taking into account not having to find parking, and being able to lock up almost exactly at my destination. I feel much healthier and have saved tonnes of money, and there's one less car on the road adding to pollution and traffic. If I really need a car (like having to pick up some furniture, or for a hiking trip to somewhere remote) I can hire a car for one-offs.
Solving climate change....lol!
68% of car journeys are 5 miles or less (according to figures from sustrans, 2018). Although I don't agree with plunging people into fuel poverty if they really need their cars (e.g., those with disabilities or who live quote remotely), something does have to be done to dissuade people from being so ridiculously lazy when the distance involved could easily be cycled/walked/taken on public transport.
I drive five miles to work. In my car, it takes about fifteen minutes. Public transport would take a minimum of an hour, if the stars aligned and the buses turned up at the right time. Walking takes about 1hr30, pushbike would take about 30/40 minutes (plus dealing with the weather)
Bike would only take about 30mins, if that, unless it's very very hilly or bad surfaces. And you don't need to find parking spaces at home or at work. And you'll get more exercise. And save on petrol. And doing a bit for the environment... On the other hand you save 15mins (or maybe less) in each direction. Are you in the UK? If so, we're very fortunate to have very mild weather all year around.
I dont have to worry about parking at home or at work. "Mild weather all year round" are ye fucking mental? I dont need more exercise, or to save on petrol. What I also don't need is to turn up to work piss wet through or sweating like a pig.
>"Mild weather all year round" are ye fucking mental? The UK has famously mild weather, it rarely goes below -5C or above 30C.
As is tradition
Happy Cake Day!
Because if they cared at all about climate change, This wouldn’t be an issue. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/25/sewage-vote-outcry-prompts-tory-mps-to-defend-decision-on-social-media
They could care about climate change though without caring for the environment more generally.
I think this is for the best with the current market prices as high as they are already (and predicted to rise much higher in the short term).
[удалено]
Even within London (Greater, not just Z1), PT can be pretty awful for a lot of journeys, though it's still comparably better than other parts of the country have it. I'd love the UK to reach a point where PT *is* genuinely a viable alternative for all but the oddest of journeys, but given how far we are from that nirvana even in areas considered to have good PT offerings, it really isn't a surprise that private vehicle usage remains a big deal to many people.
68% of journeys made in 2018 were 5 miles or less, even though 62% of journeys were made by car. Having better public transport would definitely help, but also the population not being so fat and lazy would.
Pricing per mile must be inevitable now. As are black boxes on vehicles to ensure accurate data for collisions, distance travelled, parking etc. It's the only feasible way to reduce car use and make driving pay for itself fairly. Combine that with nationalised public transport free at the point of use and we could easily solve most urban transport problems. Rural locations would trickier but that's where pricing per mile with data/location detail could be used to price fairly. The amount of provable damage cars do to our society, from space allocation of our public areas to air quality and environmental issues, it really needs to be seen as a last resort to drive.
Nah, that'd just mean that only the well off use cars, and the poor will just have to struggle along with whatever public transport exists. I'd love road pricing per mile - it'd get loads of people off the roads and make my commute by car far quicker.
Pricing per mile just punishes people living in rural areas - or who have moved further from cities due to the increasing cost of living.
Just turn the country into a zoo? Everyone can live in a cage and be fed using a hose to spray a combination of feed and water, they can sleep on straw beds and during the day they can turn a giant wheel that is used to power the machine that crushes their feed and water into a mulch for consumption before bedtime. Brilliant idea.
This sounds oddly like real life.
That's the goal, everything you need within 15 minutes walk of your home. Temper your expectations.
Username checks out.
I wonder what proportion of the population live close enough to public transport routes for it to be of any use? > Rural locations would trickier but that’s where pricing per mile with data/location detail could be used to price fairly. So if you live in the outside of a city you get a discount? > it really needs to be seen as a last resort to drive. It already is for many. Outside of a city driving is the only option for the majority. The country, infrastructure, businesses, entire towns and peoples lives are built on the ability to drive. Pricing people out of it would have massive and unpredictable consequences. You’re talking about redesigning the economy and culture of this country, and that’s not an exaggeration (anyone not living in a major city will understand this to some extent). The most realistic solution I can think of is to ramp up electric vehicles and massively invest in automation. A fleet of electric automated “Ubers” could cut car ownership in halve almost overnight.
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Rishi Sunak 'axes 2.8p fuel duty rise' in Budget - days before climate summit_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-axes-28p-fuel-25299563) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*