V-Flyer

My no. 1 says no diesel at 8 garages in SW London he's been too so far!

Yep that's all due to the Nannys in our Government giving their "advice"on filling up. It seems that strike action has been avoided until after Easter now as the unions have to give at least 7 days notice of action...and ACAS is involved...so it might never happen.

On a safety (and legal) note...please,please don't store fuel in jerry cans at your home, unless it's for your mower...even then only in outbuildings....you need a license to store over 10 litres of fuel..and that will cost you hundreds of pounds....even more if you are caught!

Please be careful out there....don't panic.

Paul

Why can't people think for themselves and realise that no strike date has been announced yet. Also the press keep going on about people panic buying, just making it all worse.

Hamster wrote:Why can't people think for themselves and realise that no strike date has been announced yet. Also the press keep going on about people panic buying, just making it all worse.

Because people are, by and large, morons.

ASWinters744 wrote:

Hamster wrote:Why can't people think for themselves and realise that no strike date has been announced yet. Also the press keep going on about people panic buying, just making it all worse.

Because people are, by and large, morons.

Seriously v(

I'll clarify my point - as to not cause unwanted offence.

People - as a collective group - are pretty thick; they act like animals, and demonstrate a distinct lack of judgement.

A person however - as an individual - acts in a more rational manner; they are more reasoned, and intelligent.

As one of the people intervieed on the BBC earlier today said

'David Cameron should keep his trap shut'

How much fuel are people wasting driving around trying to top up their tanks when if they drove normally they would be fine?

The bigger issue which is becoming clear outside big city's is with the continual march of the supermarkets selling fuel at or below cost and intent on putting smaller independent retailers out of business, when there is a crisis, genuine or government made, there are now less and less petrol retailers in your area to service your needs.

That in turn means less and less storage capacity in the chain which causes run outs.

Supposing the drivers did strike, to cause any effect to the supply chain, they would have to strike for at least a week.

The shortages at the moment, as we all know, have been caused by panic buying ( which brings me back to my first point - there is not enough supply in the UK system to adapt to any crisis )

David

tontybear wrote:As one of the people intervieed on the BBC earlier today said

'David Cameron should keep his trap shut'

How much fuel are people wasting driving around trying to top up their tanks when if they drove normally they would be fine?

But it all comes down to people taking responsibility for themselves; The Prime Minister isn't forcing people to canter about looking for a bit of petrol here and there, they are choosing to do that. If people actually read the newspapers beyond the end-of-humanity headlines, then they would realise that the strikes havn't even been called yet, and talks are ongoing.

People shouldn't blame the government - of whatever colour - for thier own poor situational judgement.

In a similar vein, what's the story about the pasty tax?

honey lamb wrote:In a similar vein, what's the story about the pasty tax?

When you buy food from a bakers, there is no vat on it. That's until you ask for it to be heated - so say £1 for a cold pie, £1.20 for a hot pie

Gregs (the bakers) got round this by saying they werent selling heated up food but rather food that just happened to be hot as it had come out the oven.

This allowed them to be 20% cheaper than the competition who were having to charge vat for the same "hot" food.

The government discovered this "anomaly" and rectified it in the last budget.

Gregs lost millions in the subsequent drop in their share price

David

honey lamb wrote:In a similar vein, what's the story about the pasty tax?

For once I actually smiled at a Daily M**l headline - something along the lines of "Pasties, Petrol and Political Panic". However, my amusement has to be tempered by the fact that the same paper was clearly intent of generating some news with headlines earlier in the week.

It doesn't matter whether there is actually a strike or not yet. Read the papers and you'll see reference to "the looming strike" that is likely to be called on the 9th April and variously will be all out / rolling / only supported by 3 people. Eh? Earlier this week it was going to be called for Good Friday. Curiously it's knocked "Dinners with DC" off the agenda

You really couldn't make this up.

David wrote:

honey lamb wrote:In a similar vein, what's the story about the pasty tax?

When you buy food from a bakers, there is no vat on it. That's until you ask for it to be heated - so say £1 for a cold pie, £1.20 for a hot pie

Gregs (the bakers) got round this by saying they werent selling heated up food but rather food that just happened to be hot as it had come out the oven.

This allowed them to be 20% cheaper than the competition who were having to charge vat for the same "hot" food.

The government discovered this "anomaly" and rectified it in the last budget.

Gregs lost millions in the subsequent drop in their share price

David

Ah, I see. Thanks for that y)

I'd seen references to it on here and FB but couldn't work it out

honey lamb wrote:

David wrote:

honey lamb wrote:In a similar vein, what's the story about the pasty tax?

Ah, I see. Thanks for that y)

I'd seen references to it on here and FB but couldn't work it out

The funniest thing was DC claiming to have once eaten a pasty. Oh dear. Where is Malcolm Tucker when you need him?

David wrote:

honey lamb wrote:In a similar vein, what's the story about the pasty tax?

We were in Cornwall last week, when this news broke. I think it fair to say that the good Cornish folk were incandescent...

Back on topic..

Earlier this week mass Daily Mail inspired panic, huge queues/ fuel running out... now no date is announced for a possible strike (although Easter muted), but assume those morons will have filled up during this week and waited hours to do so. I predict beginning of next week to to much quieter monday afternoon back to normal, as the "I'm alright- sod the rest of you" brigade will still have fuel and will be back queuing again on Thursday.

Anyone else watched the local petrol stations raise their prices suddenly this week,,,...a fuel surcharge perhaps..!

OK good, my Tristar won't have no petrol when I arrive back on Saturday!

I am surprised how many people don't realise that the government has deliberately raised the stakes by stoking people's fears. It is a game. They are trying to put pressure on the hauliers by reminding them what will happen if they strike. I suspect this will be a successful strategy -- eventually the newspapers will turn against the hauliers, as they did in 2000, when they realise that there will be no fuel to deliver their papers to the shops, and the public will do so too when the NHS starts cancelling procedures and the supermarkets start making noises about food deliveries.

Obviously the jerrycan comment was a bit off-piste, but if you think he's an idiot, look at all the photos of people filling up jerrycans...

And on the "moron" question, the point is that if you rely on a car to live your life, then it is a pretty rational decision to seek petrol whilst you can, when there is talk of there being restrictions to its supply. The fact that this leads to immediate shortages, in a self-fulfilling loop, doesn't make you a moron. It is just a simple market failure.

northernhenry wrote:Anyone else watched the local petrol stations raise their prices suddenly this week,,,...a fuel surcharge perhaps..!

This was just a rise in product price when fresh stock has been delivered after the frantic last few days sales.

Cost price last week it was around 115p per litre + VAT, today its nearly 118p per litre + VAT for unleaded.

Diesel hasn't moved, so you should just have seen a rise in the unleaded price.

David

at240 wrote:I am surprised how many people don't realise that the government has deliberately raised the stakes by stoking people's fears. It is a game. They are trying to put pressure on the hauliers by reminding them what will happen if they strike. I suspect this will be a successful strategy -- eventually the newspapers will turn against the hauliers, as they did in 2000, when they realise that there will be no fuel to deliver their papers to the shops, and the public will do so too when the NHS starts cancelling procedures and the supermarkets start making noises about food deliveries.

Until Tuesday this week the government either had its eye so wide of the ball it's frankly worrying (the voting started weeks ago) or they saw it as a low level industrial dispute that was likely to get sorted and hence nothing to worry about. There was a deliberate raising of the stakes, but (IMO) is a cynical attempt to divert attention from "Dinners with DC" (-gate). As I say, just IMO.

pjh wrote:
Until Tuesday this week the government either had its eye so wide of the ball it's frankly worrying (the voting started weeks ago) or they saw it as a low level industrial dispute that was likely to get sorted and hence nothing to worry about. There was a deliberate raising of the stakes, but (IMO) is a cynical attempt to divert attention from "Dinners with DC" (-gate). As I say, just IMO.

Shock Horror, a politician entertaining wealthy backers; and they call this news?

Blair did it in an attempt to limit Labours reliance on the Unions - Bernie Ecclestone anyone? - and I find it stomach turning to hear the likes of Miliband pontificating the 'immoral' nature of these dinners, when in all likelihood, he does the same with senior union officials.

Is it only 'sleaze' when it's the Conservatives, but 'fundraising' when it's Labour?

To be fair, if someone was giving me a few million pounds I'd probably invite them round for dinner.

Union contributions to Labour are conditional on members of that union voting for them (and members paying the political levy as part of their subs. Individual members can choose whether to pay the political levy (which is for funding political campaigns generally and not specifially for a political party) or not. Id a union wanted to fund say an anti-APD campaign it can only use its political levy funds to do that.

And not all unions are even affilliated to Labour and some unions are not even members of the TUC.

How many companies have open votes of their shareholders before contributing to the Conservatives?

But the Government IS responsible for the panic by giving out mixed messages and in some cases the message to fill up jerry can was posibly illegal under the HSE regulations if someone used too large a can.

Earlier this week, after conducting a proper ballot, the Union simply announced the result of the strike ballot - majority votes in 5 out of depots(so IF there is a strike only those 5 will be affected). The vote was 69% in favour on a 77% turnout.

It DID NOT SAY that it would strike over Easter (or indeed any date) yet rather than calming down the situation the Government made it worse by giving the false impression that an actual strike was imminent.

tontybear wrote:Union contributions to Labour are conditional on members of that union voting for them (and members paying the political levy as part of their subs. Individual members can choose whether to pay the political levy (which is for funding political campaigns generally and not specifially for a political party) or not. Id a union wanted to fund say an anti-APD campaign it can only use its political levy funds to do that.

And not all unions are even affilliated to Labour and some unions are not even members of the TUC.

How many companies have open votes of their shareholders before contributing to the Conservatives?

But the Government IS responsible for the panic by giving out mixed messages and in some cases the message to fill up jerry can was posibly illegal under the HSE regulations if someone used too large a can.

Earlier this week, after conducting a proper ballot, the Union simply announced the result of the strike ballot - majority votes in 5 out of depots(so IF there is a strike only those 5 will be affected). The vote was 69% in favour on a 77% turnout.

It DID NOT SAY that it would strike over Easter (or indeed any date) yet rather than calming down the situation the Government made it worse by giving the false impression that an actual strike was imminent.

Well at least the union vote was actually a majority this time, rather than the standard low turnouts being spun as a 'overwhelming majority'

I take your point about the union strike ballot, but that works both ways; at no point did I hear a Unite member deny any of the reports stating they would strike.

With regards to Union membership fees, and taking LHR as an example, I disagree that there is a fundamental difference between the two donation types; rather there is a difference in the source of the money. Unite operate an 'opt out' policy on fees being donated to Labour - and with 99% membership at LHR, the chances of anyone going up to thier union rep and saying they dont want thier fees to be used in that manner are almost non-existent.

It's splitting hairs to differentiate between Conservative funding, or Labour - or any political party for that matter. There is no difference between Unite donating a million pounds to Labour, or the Conservatives receiving it from a wealthy member.

I will never understand the notion that just because funding isn't from 'the hard working squeezed middle' - or whatever they are called - that makes it something to be scorned and instantly viewed through the lens of suspicion.

ASWinters744 wrote:It's splitting hairs to differentiate between Conservative funding, or Labour - or any political party for that matter. There is no difference between Unite donating a million pounds to Labour, or the Conservatives receiving it from a wealthy member.

I think Tonty's point was fair, for unions to donate to any political party, there has to be transparency and opt in, that's much more preferable to cliques of people in international enterprises (with more power than a union) to seek to influence policy by semi-transparent donations. You really only have to look to the US to see how shadowy campaign funding organizations funded by billlionaires tip the balance of policy making in their favour by virtue of their ability to influence elections through their funding. We're nothing like as bad as this in the UK, and I for one would not like us to move further toward the same model.

Anyway, back on topic, at least Tristar should be able to get me home from Heathrow tomorrow!