Subj : Re: So.......
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Nick
Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 20:16:47

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Steve Brooks wrote:

> Nick wrote:
>> Steve Brooks wrote:
>> 
>>> John I wrote:
>>>> Steve Brooks wrote:
>>>>> Kath wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> ......who filled up with petrol [sorry, gas] against government
>>>>>> advice? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not me. I've still got more than half a tank.  Should last 2-3
>>>>> weeks easy.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are you all having a gas shortage too?
>>> 
>>> Now there's a question.
>>> 
>>> A few years ago - when fuel tax was still rising every year
>>> supposedly to cut usage - a group of truckers, farmers and other
>>> petroleum-hungry malcontents organised a protest against the price
>>> of fuel.  Amongst other things they blockaded refineries and fuel
>>> storage depots. Many tanker drivers refused to cross their picket
>>> lines and there was a real shortage of fuel nationwide. They got
>>> significant public support, the government caved in and the tax was
>>> frozen (or possibly even reduced slightly, I don't remember.)
>>> 
>>> Now a similar group are planning a new protest. However, they know
>>> they don't have the same level of public support since everyone
>>> knows the recent rises have other causes. They are planning a
>>> different kind of protest and there are unlikely to be real
>>> shortages.[1] Unfortunately a whole bunch of over-excitable people
>>> have read about this and are remembering what happened last time.
>>> They are panic buying. This may well cause localised shortages by
>>> itself. It's a bit of a nuisance but no more. I can say that
>>> smuggly because I could walk to work.
>>> 
>>> [1] This doesn't mean they won't get what they want. The CBI
>>> (Confederation of British Industry ), while carefully avoiding
>>> supporting the protesters, does support a cut in fuel duty. They
>>> carry a lot of weight. 
>> 
>> I don't know if I would label truckers and farmers as
>> "petroleum-hungry malcontents".  Somebody has to do it. 
> 
> Sorry - the word 'other' should have been edited from the final
> version of my last post. The truckers have a point. Their point is
> that their competitors on the mainland can buy far cheaper fuel which
> makes them dangerous competitors. In the end truckers (and transport
> companies) don't give a damn about the price of fuel as long as they
> can pass that cost on to their customers without pricing themselves
> out of the market. 
> 
> The farmers IMO have less right on their side. They already get to
> buy cheap diesel for agricultural purposes.  It is true that all
> rural people have to cover more ground to fulfil the necessities of
> modern life.  But they are generally using lightly used roads and IMO
> they should win back on the swings by being charged less for the use
> of the roads rather than getting cheap fuel [1]. If certain farmers
> are really feeling the rising cost of fuel they could trade down from
> their top-of-the-range Mercedes to a nice Mazda (or similar.)
> 
> As for the 'petroleum hungry malcontents' - I'm sure you have a few
> of them too.
> 
> [1]  Which is why I support our government's road pricing proposals
> in principle even though I think their proposed technological
> solution is away with the fairies.
> 

I didn't know the farmers already got a cheaper rate for fuel for 
agricultural purposes. 
What road pricing proposals?

.