Do you support the fuel protests?

Yes this is a rebellion against the tyranny of taxation
50% (17 votes)
No the protestors are Tory businessmen who should be taxed more
15% (5 votes)
Down with lorries - buy a bike!
35% (12 votes)
Total votes: 34

Posted By

PaulMarsh
Sep 12 2005 06:45

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

PaulMarsh
Sep 12 2005 06:45

Your views and votes please....

Rob Ray
Sep 12 2005 09:11

I'm not happy about the destruction of parts of the haulage industry, too many jobs at stake, nor about the damage this is going to do to rural mobility, but there's a hefty silver lining in these scares happening if it provides an impetus to cleaner technologies, and I suspect many of the jobs lost in haulage may be replaced in resurgent local (less fuel intensive) agriculture... was there an 'ambivalent' option again?

Steve Booth
Sep 12 2005 15:22
Saii wrote:
I'm not happy about the destruction of parts of the haulage industry, too many jobs at stake, nor about the damage this is going to do to rural mobility, but there's a hefty silver lining in these scares happening if it provides an impetus to cleaner technologies, and I suspect many of the jobs lost in haulage may be replaced in resurgent local (less fuel intensive) agriculture... was there an 'ambivalent' option again?

I agree with this posting above, andI also think the fuel protests are justified. We were talking about it here, and one person said "The reason they are putting the petrol prices up is because they can." Which sums it up nicely.

It was interesting the last time (September 2000). I was walking to Lancaster, it is about 4 miles, and out of the blue, somebody from the village stopped on the main road, about half way there and gave me a lift.

I think the government will have laid its plans and if the fuel blockaders try to do the same thing again, they will be waiting for them. Different circumstances require different tactics....

Lazy Riser
Sep 12 2005 19:14

Hi

In general, I’m against taxation so my initial instincts are to support the protesters. But then I think, why don’t they refuse go to work unless they get pay rises to cover their costs? Because they’re reactionaries, like Fathers for Justice, the Country Side Alliance and the anti-speed camera brigade they blame “political correctness” for all their tribulations. Petrol is dished out about as cheap as it can be, if the government didn’t levy duty the price would have to rise anyway as the pumps emptied earlier under increased demand. If the price did not rise, the extra money floating around the economy would have an unpleasant inflationary effect and any benefit would be short lived.

The masterstroke of Brown’s economic model is to throttle the money supply using taxation, thus allowing the Bank of England to set interest rates independent of explicit policy but with regard to a target rate of inflation. This means inflation can be curtailed without the extremes of poverty I remember under the Tories, along side low interest rates. State-Capitalist-Monetarism, clever.

Love

Chris

Peter Good
Sep 12 2005 20:05

Driving from Huddersfield tonight was held up panic-buyers at all the petrol stations. In this context makes it harder to understand the reasons why the moderator (name of John) of the National Events board made the decision to delete the TCA's call for a National Public Transport Day on May Day 2006 from the thread. Gave one reason that the proposed tactics may cause damage to workers' cars. There you go.

Peter Good (TCA)

marinebroadcast
Sep 12 2005 20:43

Surprised to see he top option getting so may votes considering the unanimous slagging protesters recieve on this site!

WeTheYouth
Sep 12 2005 21:10

It may be organised by the haulage companies and tweed wearing bumpkins but at the end of the day petrol costs affect us all wether we like it or not, most of us catch buses or have cars, how much more are you willing to pay on tax and VAT whilst the fuel companies are hiking prices fo ever bigger profits? The people who will suffer the most never a suprise to any of us are those who are on low incomes, public travel costs will rise because of the increase in fuel costs and if you try to run a car with increasing petrol prices then it wont exactly make life any easier, and most of us know ever penny counts for alot of us. How many jobs could be set to go if haulage companies begin going bust? Surely everyone is against that. What the fuel lobby is doing is positive, we need cheaper fuel, it bad news for us all if prices keep increaseing; do we really need job losses and increase in travel costs?

Lazlo_Woodbine
Sep 12 2005 21:44
Lazy Riser wrote:
But then I think, why don’t they refuse go to work unless they get pay rises to cover their costs? Because they’re reactionaries, like Fathers for Justice, the Country Side Alliance and the anti-speed camera brigade they blame “political correctness” for all their tribulations.

Are you basing that analysis on fact? Most truckers are self-employed and not exactly in the best position to go on strike.

Lazy Riser
Sep 12 2005 22:05

Hi

No. It's devil's advocacy. Is it in poor taste?

Love

Chris

Lazy Riser
Sep 12 2005 22:18

Hi

Quote:
Most truckers are self-employed and not exactly in the best position to go on strike

Hey Laz, are you, like, “the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman” now?

Maggie Thatcher wrote:
Small businessmen need our support, definitely.

Love

Chris

Lazy Riser
Sep 12 2005 22:45

Hi

revol68 wrote:
if this was a bunch of Bolivians doing it, you'd be all for it.

I love it when you talk dirty.

Love

Chris

Lazy Riser
Sep 12 2005 23:50

Hi

There you go, reactionaries.

Love

Chris

888
Sep 13 2005 05:49

I think it's necessary to support certain aspects of the fuel protests - and I think the price of fuel will be a major point of struggle over the next few decades. Just because the protests have a petty-right character on the surface does not mean that is all there is to them.

revol68 wrote:
yeah there seems to be a knee jerk, "they're white and working class and so probably have really reactioanry views" attitude.

A huge percentage of the haulage industry is technically self employed, eg they are self employed but really only in name like many computer technicians I know. I have no problem supporting the fuel protests and the irony is that if this was a bunch of Bolivians doing it, you'd be all for it.

Certainly truckers on the US West coast are "self-employed" only because it makes it easier for their bosses to exploit them - many are/were considering joining the IWW a few months ago. Self-employed essentially means no employment rights.

JDMF
Sep 13 2005 07:38

Those who support the fuel protests, are they supporting it because of the act (people showing anger, taking action), or because of the goal (right to burn fossil fuels cheaply and continue down the road of oil based economy).

I mean, days of cheap oil are over. Transition from the abundant cheap oil which was happily burned without any consideration and care for the future to the age of reasonably priced oil is not going to be pretty. Of course as anarchists we would organise this transition very differently than what is now taking place. Government in its cowardice rather offsets the costs "to the market" and let people take the brunt of the costs, and let the market handle development of cheaper and cleaner alternatives.

Two of my work mates said that they changed to bus now and were gobsmacked how cheap it is compared to them driving. So this all is starting to have an impact.

Anyways, i dont support the fuel protests because i dont support the idea of blindly demanding cheap and abundant fossil fuel and ignoring whats going on. It's true though that the price of fuel is going to be a major battle ground in the future, and thats why there has to be a response which takes into account the need to move away from fossil fuel based economy, and also resisting off setting the inevitable costs to the people who can't afford it.

PaulMarsh
Sep 13 2005 08:07
JDMF wrote:

I mean, days of cheap oil are over. .

But the protests are not about the price oil is being traded at, or even the costs of getting it out of the ground, the complaint is about the amount of TAX being added in this country by the government.

That tax hits the poorest drivers hardest, and in terms of the haulage industry the self-employed and small businesses harder than the corporations.

Lazy Riser
Sep 13 2005 08:21

Hi

Quote:
the complaint is about the amount of TAX being added in this country by the government

So what would CW do Paul? Increase corporation tax? Increase income tax and VAT? Fuel Protesters/UKIP wouldn't be too fond of that either.

The amount of money that can be allowed to float around the economy is fixed, if the money supply is not throttled correctly the Bank of England’s economic models will fail and we’ll have to close schools and endure food shortages.

(Not “fact”, Laz, by the way, just a thought).

Love

Chris

JDMF
Sep 13 2005 08:43
PaulMarsh wrote:
JDMF wrote:

I mean, days of cheap oil are over. .

But the protests are not about the price oil is being traded at, or even the costs of getting it out of the ground, the complaint is about the amount of TAX being added in this country by the government.

That tax hits the poorest drivers hardest, and in terms of the haulage industry the self-employed and small businesses harder than the corporations.

true, but if you look at the "motorist" (like there is a class of motorists with common interests!) mood in US, it is fairly similar to the UK, the taxation is not the cause of the mood, but the rise in costs.

barrel of oil was less than half of what it is now and petrol price was around 75p, now when oil price more than doubled the petrol price didn't because of the tax smooths the rise. So the fuel costs are factored in to the economy as a whole already and will not cause any significant rise in living costs (rise yes, but not significant ones). Also, the high fuel price hasn't stopped people moving into bigger and bigger cars and fuel efficiency is not a high priority even among the lowest income groups.

Contrast this to US where rise in oil prices leads almost straight into the final cost of petrol, and causes huge inflation.

If it was about poverty and affordability, then surely targetting VAT on food would be the first campaign to launch.

I feel for the hauliers, but in capitalist economy hauliers took the jobs off the railroads on the back of the cheap oil. Now if the tables are turned, i dont know how to react to support people whose livelihoods are in danger, but at the same time support move from roads to rail.

Lazy Riser
Sep 13 2005 11:59

Hi

Quote:
If it was about poverty and affordability, then surely targetting VAT on food would be the first campaign to launch

There is no VAT on most food, things like Ice Cream being an exception.

Chris

Steven.
Sep 13 2005 12:35
PaulMarsh wrote:
That tax hits the poorest drivers hardest, and in terms of the haulage industry the self-employed and small businesses harder than the corporations.

Exactly. I'm pretty opposed to all taxes which hit the poor and the rich equally (and therefore impact much more on the poor).

My dad was a minicab driver, like tens of thousands of others, till he retired last year, for self-employed people like him and rural residents the high cost of petrol makes living very difficult.

Peter Good:

Peter Good wrote:
Driving from Huddersfield tonight was held up panic-buyers at all the petrol stations. In this context makes it harder to understand the reasons why the moderator (name of John) of the National Events board made the decision to delete the TCA's call for a National Public Transport Day on May Day 2006 from the thread. Gave one reason that the proposed tactics may cause damage to workers' cars. There you go.

Peter Good (TCA)

First of all, all the moderators agreed your thread should be removed - for the second time. You know that was not the only reason given, the others being that you were advertising a fake event, as well as telling people to attack workers' cars with paint - while they're moving. A fucking stupid idea, and no doubt one which you aren't moronic enough to try yourself. Although if you did I'm sure you would be given a well-deserved kicking, hopefully before you'd been able to cause a fatal accident roll eyes roll eyes

Peter Good
Sep 13 2005 13:28

This sort of reply is all too common on the forum. A straight-forward rebuttal would have been sufficient without the need to sour the pie with a personal assault. Poses again the question of how a free society would deal with differences.

Peter Good (TCA)

WeTheYouth
Sep 13 2005 13:57
revol68 wrote:
well hopefully people like you will still be held as pricks.

Can we not just shoot them?

Steven.
Sep 13 2005 14:01
Peter Good wrote:
This sort of reply is all too common on the forum. A straight-forward rebuttal would have been sufficient without the need to sour the pie with a personal assault. Poses again the question of how a free society would deal with differences.

Peter Good (TCA)

You were the one who tried to make me personally out as censorious by posting an edited summation of part of a PRIVATE message I sent you on a public forum to try and make a cheap point. Why not point your high-and-mighty critical eye on yourself for a second?

Peter Good
Sep 13 2005 15:12

John, Then I apologise to you. It's a lame excuse but my IT skills have only very recently been learned and I hadn't realised it was a private email. Sorry mate. Peter Good (TCA).

BB
Sep 13 2005 15:37

"Down with lorries - buy a bike!"

Does that mean we can produce really big bikes, like a ten person tandem to haul heavy goods, over long distances? Or just work out more (like i work out, ha,ha,ha)?

kalabine
Sep 13 2005 16:27

what does TCA stand for? confused , maybe IAC would be more appropriate

peter good you're a prick and hopefully would get a kicking for what you propose

and yes i do support the fuel protests, for the same reasons as john

oisleep
Sep 13 2005 16:55
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
If it was about poverty and affordability, then surely targetting VAT on food would be the first campaign to launch

There is no VAT on most food, things like Ice Cream being an exception.

Chris

and jaffa cakes, luxury item you see

creepyoller
Sep 13 2005 19:46

Are these fuel protesters the hauliers that were making thousands moving scab coal in 1984/85?

rebel_lion
Sep 13 2005 22:54

dunno what i think of the fuel protests themselves, but i reckon some genuine good could be done if the people blockading refineries, petrol stations etc right now could be given some decent information about biodiesel...

it's (a lot) cheaper than fossil oil (even at "normal" prices), can be made in a DIY stylee in your back yard if you know what you're doing, and doesn't have any VAT (if you buy olive/rapeseed/whatever oil as "food")... it's cleaner than normal diesel as well...

won't bring about a revolution or anything, but it would bring the "we want cheaper fuel" protesters togethjer with the environmental lobby, and piss off the oil companies at the same time by showing ppl that rather than lobbying them they can just bypass them (or at least some people can)... which is the fundamental principle of DIY culture really, which imo is integral to anarchism, even if not everyone who uses the buzzword is a genuine anarchist...

Vaneigemappreci...
Sep 14 2005 00:21

If you take the rises in petrol prices to be an assault on the working class (obviously it affects more people than simply the working class) as someone like cleaver would do then the fuel protests are certainly valid, however they are clearly not revolutionary protests as they seem to be calling for simply decreasing the prices of petrol so things can 'get back to normal' so its neither ic it a case of outrightly supporting the protests or condemming them as protests by tories who want to travel for cheaper, instead we should be linking it into the greater class struggle, how we do this is another matter.

Peter Good
Sep 14 2005 07:14

It's difficult to be grateful to people when they are poking you in the eye but I realised I've got an answer to the question I've posed about three times now on various threads; namely: How would a free society deal with difference?

Silly me. It's done by personal attacks.

I owe this insight to my dear niece - who is impatiently teaching me to surf the net - who tells me this is everyday life in her playground at school where the conformity is expertly policed by fellow playmates.

OK. It's an answer. I'm not persuaded by it but I'll have a drink on you all tonight.

To Braver and Better Times!

Peter Good (TCA)