Fuel prices

[Shrop]

The UK Government is crying out for money at the moment, accompanied by a war of words about there being no money for defence (or the NHS, or other things) not least because so much is being spent on welfare.

Why then, is there such a massive reluctance to put, say 5p on a litre of fuel, which has the potential to raise literally £billions? Of course raising fuel prices is never popular, but is it really as much of a “no no” as politicians believe? After all, Trump’s war of choice has cost all of us around three times this much, yet almost everyone just gets on with it. Yes we complain, but we still pay it and in practice it doesn’t seem to have made any difference to the numbers of vehicles on our roads, which are as congested as ever.

So would a rise of 5p per litre of fuel really be that bad, when it could make such great headway towards addressing some of our pressing needs? I’d be happy to pay an extra 5p or even 10p per litre if it meant better public transport, or better defence for our country, or more police, or shorter waits for hospital treatment. Or perhaps something towards all of these.

And if only Government would make it clear that these would be the benefits, I’d admire them for their courage and honesty. Any thoughts anyone?

 

[JamesT]

The UK Government is crying out for money at the moment, accompanied by a war of words about there being no money for defence (or the NHS, or other things) not least because so much is being spent on welfare.

Why then, is there such a massive reluctance to put, say 5p on a litre of fuel, which has the potential to raise literally £billions? Of course raising fuel prices is never popular, but is it really as much of a “no no” as politicians believe? After all, Trump’s war of choice has cost all of us around three times this much, yet almost everyone just gets on with it. Yes we complain, but we still pay it and in practice it doesn’t seem to have made any difference to the numbers of vehicles on our roads, which are as congested as ever.

So would a rise of 5p per litre of fuel really be that bad, when it could make such great headway towards addressing some of our pressing needs? I’d be happy to pay an extra 5p or even 10p per litre if it meant better public transport, or better defence for our country, or more police, or shorter waits for hospital treatment. Or perhaps something towards all of these.

And if only Government would make it clear that these would be the benefits, I’d admire them for their courage and honesty. Any thoughts anyone?

80% of freight is carried by road, bumping up fuel duty is likely to get passed on to the prices everyone pays for the goods carried.
NHS spending increases in real terms every year. What makes you think a little more is going to make a fundamental change? Or will it just go into another pay rise for the doctors?

 

[Hadders]

The UK Government is crying out for money at the moment, accompanied by a war of words about there being no money for defence (or the NHS, or other things) not least because so much is being spent on welfare.

Why then, is there such a massive reluctance to put, say 5p on a litre of fuel, which has the potential to raise literally £billions? Of course raising fuel prices is never popular, but is it really as much of a “no no” as politicians believe? After all, Trump’s war of choice has cost all of us around three times this much, yet almost everyone just gets on with it. Yes we complain, but we still pay it and in practice it doesn’t seem to have made any difference to the numbers of vehicles on our roads, which are as congested as ever.

So would a rise of 5p per litre of fuel really be that bad, when it could make such great headway towards addressing some of our pressing needs? I’d be happy to pay an extra 5p or even 10p per litre if it meant better public transport, or better defence for our country, or more police, or shorter waits for hospital treatment. Or perhaps something towards all of these.

And if only Government would make it clear that these would be the benefits, I’d admire them for their courage and honesty. Any thoughts anyone?

There’s already been a 30p increase this year, and the government benefits from the additional VAT charged on the increased price.

Everything we buy involves transport and is therefore linked to the cost of fuel. If that increases then prices in the shops goes up. Reducing people’s spending power is not a good way to grow the economy.

Finally, whatever the merits of doing so, increasing the price of petrol at the pumps is a ‘courageous’ thing for a politician to do. As Sir Humphrey would say, ‘the ultimate vote loser’.

 

[Stossgebet]

If you start off with the premise that our costs have all increased because of Trumps "war of choice". Should you not look closer to home, and see how the eu 'and it's ever expansionist choice' lead directly to the war in Ukraine, by upsetting the Ukraine Russia status quo? A war now 4 and half years long, on our doorstep, and creating a bigger need for defence spending.

We need cuts not taxes. Our taxes are already way too high. So what do we cut? Foreign aid? Any of Starmer vanity projects that see us sending money to the eu? Any spending for Ukraine? Everything is a choice. It just seems that all the choices the government makes are harmful to us, and in favour of others. 'Two tier' government spending.

 

[Sonic1234]

A fuel duty freeze is a rare example of politicians enacting the will of the people.

This Government is unable to make hard decisions though.

 

[Shrop]

There’s already been a 30p increase this year, and the government benefits from the additional VAT charged on the increased price.

Everything we buy involves transport and is therefore linked to the cost of fuel. If that increases then prices in the shops goes up. Reducing people’s spending power is not a good way to grow the economy.

Finally, whatever the merits of doing so, increasing the price of petrol at the pumps is a ‘courageous’ thing for a politician to do. As Sir Humphrey would say, ‘the ultimate vote loser’.

I’ve always been a great admirer of the writing around Sir Humphrey & co., which probably still stands as the cleverest and most incisive sitcom ever written. However, that isn’t the point.

Fuel price rises have been associated with being a vote loser ever since, but that’s only because successive Governments of both colours ever since have had neither the courage nor even the sense to grasp this particular bull by the horns and spell out to the country what they’re doing and why.

Everything has to be paid for, whether it’s our defence, the NHS, schools, police, public transport or anything else involving the public purse. The problem we have in the UK is the failure of both politicians and the media to explain what’s going on.

Politicians only cling to the belief that fuel price rises are a vote loser because it makes an easy target for their opponents, to make the false claim that they’re trying to take money away from people without good reason. And then the media make a headline grabbing sensation out of whatever they can about it, with little or no meaningful analysis.

So when money is needed for any of the things as above, or any number of other things, something has to give. Think about whether you would want more soldiers for our country if it meant cancelling an upcoming life saving operation for you or someone you care about. Really, think about it.

There are many more examples that could be made, and there are always hard choices, but since the money has to come from somewhere, it’s a fallacy to keep defaulting to the belief that a fuel price rise is the wrong way to do it.

What is needed is the courage to face these hard choices and guide people to understand what’s going on. If we were certain that a fuel price rise would result directly in an improvement in any of our public services, then surely we wouldn’t be so against it. The mistake is the belief that the revenue raised just vanishes without trace.

Maybe I haven’t explained that well enough, I’m not the best with words. But I remain convinced that it’s wrong to fall into the trap of always believing that fuel price rises are so wrong. The only wrong thing is the lack of certainty that the money from doing so would be spent wisely for the benefit of our public services. It just needs courageous leadership to clarify this.

 

[edwin_m]

If you start off with the premise that our costs have all increased because of Trumps "war of choice". Should you not look closer to home, and see how the eu 'and it's ever expansionist choice' lead directly to the war in Ukraine, by upsetting the Ukraine Russia status quo? A war now 4 and half years long, on our doorstep, and creating a bigger need for defence spending.

We need cuts not taxes. Our taxes are already way too high. So what do we cut? Foreign aid? Any of Starmer vanity projects that see us sending money to the eu? Any spending for Ukraine? Everything is a choice. It just seems that all the choices the government makes are harmful to us, and in favour of others. 'Two tier' government spending.

Welcome to the forum Vladimir Vladimirovich.

 

[deltic]

80% of freight is carried by road, bumping up fuel duty is likely to get passed on to the prices everyone pays for the goods carried.
NHS spending increases in real terms every year. What makes you think a little more is going to make a fundamental change? Or will it just go into another pay rise for the doctors?

A 10p increase in fuel duty will increase the cost of goods transport by around 3% which in turn would lead to around 0.15% increase in the final price if costs are passed though to the end user. Hence the impact is not material.

Now is a good time to reinforce the need to decarbonise our economy so we are not reliant on dodgy states for essential goods like fuel. Increasing fuel duty is a good way to do this.

 

[Stossgebet]

Welcome to the forum Vladimir Vladimirovich.

Why comment? If you have a counter point, say it. If not, your snide remark just highlights an attempt to smear the messager because you can't counter the message.
Maybe you can put forward a viable alternative take on events. maybe that point would be valid. Or maybe you can't, and your comment just smells of someone that doesn't like reading an account of a time line that doesn't suit their pre determined narrative. Sorry if you don't like things a different perpective to yours. I am sure you are a very tolerant person though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2026 ==

I’ve always been a great admirer of the writing around Sir Humphrey & co., which probably still stands as the cleverest and most incisive sitcom ever written. However, that isn’t the point.

Fuel price rises have been associated with being a vote loser ever since, but that’s only because successive Governments of both colours ever since have had neither the courage nor even the sense to grasp this particular bull by the horns and spell out to the country what they’re doing and why.

Everything has to be paid for, whether it’s our defence, the NHS, schools, police, public transport or anything else involving the public purse. The problem we have in the UK is the failure of both politicians and the media to explain what’s going on.

Politicians only cling to the belief that fuel price rises are a vote loser because it makes an easy target for their opponents, to make the false claim that they’re trying to take money away from people without good reason. And then the media make a headline grabbing sensation out of whatever they can about it, with little or no meaningful analysis.

So when money is needed for any of the things as above, or any number of other things, something has to give. Think about whether you would want more soldiers for our country if it meant cancelling an upcoming life saving operation for you or someone you care about. Really, think about it.

There are many more examples that could be made, and there are always hard choices, but since the money has to come from somewhere, it’s a fallacy to keep defaulting to the belief that a fuel price rise is the wrong way to do it.

What is needed is the courage to face these hard choices and guide people to understand what’s going on. If we were certain that a fuel price rise would result directly in an improvement in any of our public services, then surely we wouldn’t be so against it. The mistake is the belief that the revenue raised just vanishes without trace.

Maybe I haven’t explained that well enough, I’m not the best with words. But I remain convinced that it’s wrong to fall into the trap of always believing that fuel price rises are so wrong. The only wrong thing is the lack of certainty that the money from doing so would be spent wisely for the benefit of our public services. It just needs courageous leadership to clarify this.

That's a very good perspective, which in my mind, is very cirrect at the end, about will the raised revenue go where it is supposed to.
See how this government came into power with a promise to put VAT of private school and use that to recruit an additional 6000 teachers. We later found out that the tax raised was not ring fenced for additional teachers. We know find out that teacher numbers have actually reduced.
It's no wonder we don't have trust in out government (be it left or right!).

But with regard this specific tax. There is actually no need to raise the tax on fuel, as the tax revenue from fuel will have ahot upwards, when fuel prices did. Increasing a tax on an increasing price, is a very unpleasant double blow however you dress it up.

 

[deltic]

If you start off with the premise that our costs have all increased because of Trumps "war of choice". Should you not look closer to home, and see how the eu 'and it's ever expansionist choice' lead directly to the war in Ukraine, by upsetting the Ukraine Russia status quo? A war now 4 and half years long, on our doorstep, and creating a bigger need for defence spending.

I'll bite - EU is not an expansionist organisation -in fact it places considerable barriers on countries that wish to join, it doesnt go out of its way to entice countries in. If Ukraine wants to apply to join the EU that is matter for it, not for Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine solely for the reason that Putin wants to restore the former Russian empire. The UK along with USA didnt quite guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty for giving up its nuclear weapons but they certainly have a moral duty to support it against an invading nation.

 

[6Gman]

The UK Government is crying out for money at the moment, accompanied by a war of words about there being no money for defence (or the NHS, or other things) not least because so much is being spent on welfare.

Why then, is there such a massive reluctance to put, say 5p on a litre of fuel, which has the potential to raise literally £billions? Of course raising fuel prices is never popular, but is it really as much of a “no no” as politicians believe?

So would a rise of 5p per litre of fuel really be that bad, when it could make such great headway towards addressing some of our pressing needs? I’d be happy to pay an extra 5p or even 10p per litre if it meant better public transport, or better defence for our country, or more police, or shorter waits for hospital treatment. Or perhaps something towards all of these.

It would raise around £1.8bn

Total government expenditure is over £800bn.

So around a 0.25% impact.

 

[Stossgebet]

I'll bite - EU is not an expansionist organisation -in fact it places considerable barriers on countries that wish to join, it doesnt go out of its way to entice countries in. If Ukraine wants to apply to join the EU that is matter for it, not for Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine solely for the reason that Putin wants to restore the former Russian empire. The UK along with USA didnt quite guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty for giving up its nuclear weapons but they certainly have a moral duty to support it against an invading nation.

The eu has done nothing but expand. Judge it by its actions.
And why were the eu foreign commisioner Baroness Ashton and the eu president Barroso in Ukraine, supporting the protestors against the Ukraine government? In what way is that acceptable? Unless you are trying to protect an accession agreement, and you are persuing a new member state, and offering billions of euros to that state to acceed. Why was the eu offering huge sums of money to Ukraine?

Both the eu and Russia were offering deals to ukraine. Of course the eu deal was by far the better of the two... and Russia made clear that there would be consequences if Ukraine joined the eu, mainly threatening gas supplies. Which is ironic, given how dependant Germany was on Russian gas, and how this thread started with a comment about increasing fuel taxes and blaming Trump for fuel costs going up... i think my point stands. If the eu didn't court Ukraine, didn't seek to further expand east, then the whole war in Ukraine wouldn't have happened, and europe would be living the high life on their cheap gas. And hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't have been lost in this war.
You could say that it was the catalyst needed to reduce reliance on fossil feuls and imported energy (and that would be a good take away), but to deny that the situation on eu expansion did not have any consequences, is ludicrous. Just because we don't like to acknowledge fault, failure or ignorance, doesn't mean that what actually happened, somehow happened for some other, totally unrelated or unfathomable reason.
The mistake the eu and the west made, was thinking that it could do whatever it wanted, and the consequences of its actions could be laid at whomever its action provoked.
Why do i think the expansion of the eu to Ukraine is provocative?
Because in the UK we now have first hand experience of what it is like to have a hard border with the eu. How unpleasant the eu has been with the border (look how quick Brussles were to threaten to close the border in Ireland, when the UK was getting covid jabs first). We politely call it 'trade barriers''. Russia also has that experience with eu borders with Finland and the Baltic states. Now imagine Russias perspective when you try to take away one of their biggest trading partners in Ukraine, and replace it with another eu border. Effectively imposing another trade barrier. You don't have to pick sides, or have a favourite, to look at a situation, and see the issues.

In short whether you like it or not, Ukraine joining the eu had a material and negative impact on Russia. And that was either dismissed as a 'so what, not our problem' or dismissed as a 'Putin won't dare do anything'. Either way. That calculation, if indeed there even was one, was a huge foreign policy failure by the eu. And so many people have paid the price.

And please, don't try and dismiss this as me being a fan of Russia or its leadership. I am just an interest observer, 2ho hqs seen fuel prices rise, taxes rise, war in my continent, and who saw a post complaining about Trump, and ignoring what happened on our own doorstep, while we were still in the eu. Indeed, Baroness Ashton is a Labour party peer!

 

[edwin_m]

The eu has done nothing but expand. Judge it by its actions.
And why were the eu foreign commisioner Baroness Ashton and the eu president Barroso in Ukraine, supporting the protestors against the Ukraine government? In what way is that acceptable? Unless you are trying to protect an accession agreement, and you are persuing a new member state, and offering billions of euros to that state to acceed. Why was the eu offering huge sums of money to Ukraine?

Both the eu and Russia were offering deals to ukraine. Of course the eu deal was by far the better of the two... and Russia made clear that there would be consequences if Ukraine joined the eu, mainly threatening gas supplies. Which is ironic, given how dependant Germany was on Russian gas, and how this thread started with a comment about increasing fuel taxes and blaming Trump for fuel costs going up... i think my point stands. If the eu didn't court Ukraine, didn't seek to further expand east, then the whole war in Ukraine wouldn't have happened, and europe would be living the high life on their cheap gas. And hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't have been lost in this war.
You could say that it was the catalyst needed to reduce reliance on fossil feuls and imported energy (and that would be a good take away), but to deny that the situation on eu expansion did not have any consequences, is ludicrous. Just because we don't like to acknowledge fault, failure or ignorance, doesn't mean that what actually happened, somehow happened for some other, totally unrelated or unfathomable reason.
The mistake the eu and the west made, was thinking that it could do whatever it wanted, and the consequences of its actions could be laid at whomever its action provoked.
Why do i think the expansion of the eu to Ukraine is provocative?
Because in the UK we now have first hand experience of what it is like to have a hard border with the eu. How unpleasant the eu has been with the border (look how quick Brussles were to threaten to close the border in Ireland, when the UK was getting covid jabs first). We politely call it 'trade barriers''. Russia also has that experience with eu borders with Finland and the Baltic states. Now imagine Russias perspective when you try to take away one of their biggest trading partners in Ukraine, and replace it with another eu border. Effectively imposing another trade barrier. You don't have to pick sides, or have a favourite, to look at a situation, and see the issues.

In short whether you like it or not, Ukraine joining the eu had a material and negative impact on Russia. And that was either dismissed as a 'so what, not our problem' or dismissed as a 'Putin won't dare do anything'. Either way. That calculation, if indeed there even was one, was a huge foreign policy failure by the eu. And so many people have paid the price.

And please, don't try and dismiss this as me being a fan of Russia or its leadership. I am just an interest observer, 2ho hqs seen fuel prices rise, taxes rise, war in my continent, and who saw a post complaining about Trump, and ignoring what happened on our own doorstep, while we were still in the eu. Indeed, Baroness Ashton is a Labour party peer!

Just to be clear, Ukraine hasn't joined the EU and there is considerable resistance within the EU to them doing so.

What you completely ignore is the wishes of the peoples of eastern Europe who have joined the EU or are working to, and are largely supportive of doing so as most recently witnessed by elections in Moldova and Hungary. Your suggestion would be to deny those citizens their democratic wish, keeping them under the thumb of Russia as they have been since 1945 or before. All to please Putin and the oligarchs, who don't care about the wishes of their own people otherwise they wouldn't be volunteering so many of them for a one-way trip to the frontline. When Russia behaves that way is it really surprising that other countries want to keep them out?

Perhaps if Russia wished to retain its influence, it should try the diplomatic path rather than intervening militarily in the affairs of several of its neighbours? Likening the situation of Britain vs the EU with that of Russia vs its western neighbours suggests that our next step ought to be to invade and capture some EU territory. I believe Boris Johnson suggested that once, but I'd like to think nobody would seriously consider it.

Germany in particular has tried partnership with Russia by buying their fuel as you suggest. It didn't stop them invading Ukraine (or Georgia or lesser interference in other nearby countries). It seems nothing less than total subservience by neighbouring countries is enough to satisfy Putin.

And on the question of fuel prices, the most recent spike has little to do with Ukraine, having been triggered by Trump and Netanyahu.

 

[Egg Centric]

Fiddling while Rome burns.

1. Sort out marginal tax and "tax" rates. By latter I mean transitioning off benefits of various kinds. You can end up with 70-80% or even >100% rates in certain places. This is crazy.
2. Sort out benefits and by this I am explicitly including pensions, which is the biggest problem.
3. Appreciate that we are an aging population and that while we could and should make having a family easier for whatever reason lots of people don't want to (and those that do are having them later causing lots of extra special needs)
4. For those who want a family younger, again make it much easier.
5. Appreciate that a lot of special needs are not that special. I'm neurodiverse but I don't need any extra measures. The incentives are completely screwed atm and 20% of kids being neurodiverse may or may not be true in terms of diagnosis but that's not something that ought to mean anything from an education perspective.
6. Heck, recognise incentives exist in general. There's a huge "middle path" atm where striving is basically pointless. Again due to perverse effective tax/reduction of benefit rates
7. Kill populist nonsense like rent control through RRA (but also severely increase penalties for being a dickhead landlord, cause so many of them are)
8. Instead build build build! Concrete over the south east, it's 95% rubbish anyway. Throw away most of planning law. Use zoning and presumption a house or estate can be built. Encourage small local developers.
9. Recognise how much trouble we're in
10. 10 Lane motorways everywhere with no speed limit.

 

[Stossgebet]

Just to be clear, Ukraine hasn't joined the EU and there is considerable resistance within the EU to them doing so.

What you completely ignore is the wishes of the peoples of eastern Europe who have joined the EU or are working to, and are largely supportive of doing so as most recently witnessed by elections in Moldova and Hungary. Your suggestion would be to deny those citizens their democratic wish, keeping them under the thumb of Russia as they have been since 1945 or before. All to please Putin and the oligarchs, who don't care about the wishes of their own people otherwise they wouldn't be volunteering so many of them for a one-way trip to the frontline. When Russia behaves that way is it really surprising that other countries want to keep them out?

Perhaps if Russia wished to retain its influence, it should try the diplomatic path rather than intervening militarily in the affairs of several of its neighbours? Likening the situation of Britain vs the EU with that of Russia vs its western neighbours suggests that our next step ought to be to invade and capture some EU territory. I believe Boris Johnson suggested that once, but I'd like to think nobody would seriously consider it.

Germany in particular has tried partnership with Russia by buying their fuel as you suggest. It didn't stop them invading Ukraine (or Georgia or lesser interference in other nearby countries). It seems nothing less than total subservience by neighbouring countries is enough to satisfy Putin.

And on the question of fuel prices, the most recent spike has little to do with Ukraine, having been triggered by Trump and Netanyahu.

Thanks for as detailed a reply as i gave.
The eu-ukraine association agreement covering political issues was signed in March 2014, a month after Russia invaded Crimea. The economic part was signed in June 2014. So yes, while Ukraine isn't a full member, the direction of travel is absolutely clear. And the consequences of it, are too. And note that it also means being subserviant to the eu. The Ukraine state railways will have to be broken up and tendered to the private sector whether they like it or not.

With regards to eu borders, you push way beyond what i meant, and perhaps invented a strawman when you suggest that to compare the UK border with the eu and the Russian border, that we shoud invade. You know that's a false arguement, and hopefully meant in an illustrative manner. But i thought i made it perfectly clear that i was talking about 'trade barriers'. Which are one of the main things that the anti brexit people complain about. Yet when it comes to the eu erecting a massive trade barrier between Ukraine and Russia, that point gets completely dismissed (or in your case, exaggerated into parody).

And yes, of course this years fuel spike is due to the situation in Iran. But it must be the correct thing, to have a look in the mirror, and reflect on the actions we have taken within the eu and its expansionist foreign policy, before complaining about the actions of others. Be it Putin or Trump. I believe my point stands that all our energy prices would be cheaper, if the eu just stayed where it was and said 'we're big enough now'. That you correctly identify that Putin isn't happy unless all his neighbours are subservient, is evidence enough to me, that the eu association agreement was directly provocative, and a massive failure. If 4 years of war and destruction, and 4 years of massive energy price increases aren't evidence of a failure. Then i don't know what is.
Doing something provocative, then trying to saying that you have the moral high ground, or a right to do it. Is not justification enough, when conflict is the outcome.

I wonder if when people say that Putin should have handed it diplomatically rather than with force. I wonder if what they really mean is that the west and the eu have the right to do as they please, and the only legitmate response from those that suffer a material change, is to write a strongly worded letter? As we have seen with the consequences of the eu doing what it wants, the world doesn't work like that. And to think that the eu self proclaims it is all about creating peace in europe. Again. Massive failure on that part!

my final answer to a point of yours, relates to electorates in other countries wanting to join the eu. I would ask what is the eu doing in those places, like in Ukraine, where it was promising billions of euros. Does the eu interfere in foreign politics of third countries in order to promote itself? Of course it does, that's why Baroness Ashton and president Barroso were in Kiev, supporting the protestors and helping to overthrow a government. So let's not think the eu isn't all about expansion. Its actions prove it is. And while many people may be in favour. The consequences have to be accounted for. If Trump is to blame for a price increase this year, we've all suffered 4 years worse, because of actions in our own continent. Refecting on that, and giving it some thought, can't be a bad thing.

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks for as detailed a reply as i gave.
The eu-ukraine association agreement covering political issues was signed in March 2014, a month after Russia invaded Crimea. The economic part was signed in June 2014. So yes, while Ukraine isn't a full member, the direction of travel is absolutely clear. And the consequences of it, are too. And note that it also means being subserviant to the eu. The Ukraine state railways will have to be broken up and tendered to the private sector whether they like it or not.

With regards to eu borders, you push way beyond what i meant, and perhaps invented a strawman when you suggest that to compare the UK border with the eu and the Russian border, that we shoud invade. You know that's a false arguement, and hopefully meant in an illustrative manner. But i thought i made it perfectly clear that i was talking about 'trade barriers'. Which are one of the main things that the anti brexit people complain about. Yet when it comes to the eu erecting a massive trade barrier between Ukraine and Russia, that point gets completely dismissed (or in your case, exaggerated into parody).

And yes, of course this years fuel spike is due to the situation in Iran. But it must be the correct thing, to have a look in the mirror, and reflect on the actions we have taken within the eu and its expansionist foreign policy, before complaining about the actions of others. Be it Putin or Trump. I believe my point stands that all our energy prices would be cheaper, if the eu just stayed where it was and said 'we're big enough now'. That you correctly identify that Putin isn't happy unless all his neighbours are subservient, is evidence enough to me, that the eu association agreement was directly provocative, and a massive failure. If 4 years of war and destruction, and 4 years of massive energy price increases aren't evidence of a failure. Then i don't know what is.
Doing something provocative, then trying to saying that you have the moral high ground, or a right to do it. Is not justification enough, when conflict is the outcome.

I wonder if when people say that Putin should have handed it diplomatically rather than with force. I wonder if what they really mean is that the west and the eu have the right to do as they please, and the only legitmate response from those that suffer a material change, is to write a strongly worded letter? As we have seen with the consequences of the eu doing what it wants, the world doesn't work like that. And to think that the eu self proclaims it is all about creating peace in europe. Again. Massive failure on that part!

my final answer to a point of yours, relates to electorates in other countries wanting to join the eu. I would ask what is the eu doing in those places, like in Ukraine, where it was promising billions of euros. Does the eu interfere in foreign politics of third countries in order to promote itself? Of course it does, that's why Baroness Ashton and president Barroso were in Kiev, supporting the protestors and helping to overthrow a government. So let's not think the eu isn't all about expansion. Its actions prove it is. And while many people may be in favour. The consequences have to be accounted for. If Trump is to blame for a price increase this year, we've all suffered 4 years worse, because of actions in our own continent. Refecting on that, and giving it some thought, can't be a bad thing.

I do agree that the situation between Russia and Ukraine is not comparable with that between Britain and the EU, as the latter is not going to result in military action. But this also means it's not valid to compare them. Even when Germany and other states engaged diplomatically and economically, that wasn't enough for Putin and he invaded anyway. Perhaps it was the right thing for Germany to give that a try, or perhaps the West should have refused to engage with Russia once it was clear that the 1990s were a false dawn in their politics (and the West made a lot of mistakes that may have led to that situation)

Anyway, it's clear we aren't going to agree, the mods will probably flag this as off-topic for the specific discussion of fuel prices, and I have a life to lead. So I'm going to leave it here.

 

[yorksrob]

If you start off with the premise that our costs have all increased because of Trumps "war of choice". Should you not look closer to home, and see how the eu 'and it's ever expansionist choice' lead directly to the war in Ukraine, by upsetting the Ukraine Russia status quo? A war now 4 and half years long, on our doorstep, and creating a bigger need for defence spending.

Russia will always be a problem, all the while its criminal leaders and gullible population try and recreate the Russian Empire that no one else wants.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2026 ==

The eu has done nothing but expand. Judge it by its actions.
And why were the eu foreign commisioner Baroness Ashton and the eu president Barroso in Ukraine, supporting the protestors against the Ukraine government? In what way is that acceptable? Unless you are trying to protect an accession agreement, and you are persuing a new member state, and offering billions of euros to that state to acceed. Why was the eu offering huge sums of money to Ukraine?

Both the eu and Russia were offering deals to ukraine. Of course the eu deal was by far the better of the two... and Russia made clear that there would be consequences if Ukraine joined the eu, mainly threatening gas supplies. Which is ironic, given how dependant Germany was on Russian gas, and how this thread started with a comment about increasing fuel taxes and blaming Trump for fuel costs going up... i think my point stands. If the eu didn't court Ukraine, didn't seek to further expand east, then the whole war in Ukraine wouldn't have happened, and europe would be living the high life on their cheap gas. And hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't have been lost in this war.
You could say that it was the catalyst needed to reduce reliance on fossil feuls and imported energy (and that would be a good take away), but to deny that the situation on eu expansion did not have any consequences, is ludicrous. Just because we don't like to acknowledge fault, failure or ignorance, doesn't mean that what actually happened, somehow happened for some other, totally unrelated or unfathomable reason.
The mistake the eu and the west made, was thinking that it could do whatever it wanted, and the consequences of its actions could be laid at whomever its action provoked.
Why do i think the expansion of the eu to Ukraine is provocative?
Because in the UK we now have first hand experience of what it is like to have a hard border with the eu. How unpleasant the eu has been with the border (look how quick Brussles were to threaten to close the border in Ireland, when the UK was getting covid jabs first). We politely call it 'trade barriers''. Russia also has that experience with eu borders with Finland and the Baltic states. Now imagine Russias perspective when you try to take away one of their biggest trading partners in Ukraine, and replace it with another eu border. Effectively imposing another trade barrier. You don't have to pick sides, or have a favourite, to look at a situation, and see the issues.

In short whether you like it or not, Ukraine joining the eu had a material and negative impact on Russia. And that was either dismissed as a 'so what, not our problem' or dismissed as a 'Putin won't dare do anything'. Either way. That calculation, if indeed there even was one, was a huge foreign policy failure by the eu. And so many people have paid the price.

And please, don't try and dismiss this as me being a fan of Russia or its leadership. I am just an interest observer, 2ho hqs seen fuel prices rise, taxes rise, war in my continent, and who saw a post complaining about Trump, and ignoring what happened on our own doorstep, while we were still in the eu. Indeed, Baroness Ashton is a Labour party peer!

Countries choose to join (and sometimes leave) the EU. There wouldn't be a problem if Russia were capable of living within its already generous borders.

It's a sign of the generally peaecable nature of the EU that it didn't launch a "special operation" to regain Britain after Brexit.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is for the discussion of Fuel Prices. If anyone wants to discuss anything else then they are welcome to start a new thread elsewhere.

 

[Stossgebet]

The thread is actually about tax rises. Just that fuel prices are the excuse the OP is using to say we need to raise taxes further. Without knowledging they are higher than ever, or why we need taxes so high.
Any subject needs context. And there are often multiple elements to a subject.

 

[Shrop]

It would raise around £1.8bn

Total government expenditure is over £800bn.

So around a 0.25% impact.

I'm not convinced of your figures. But more importantly, you make it sound like £1.8bn just isn't worth bothering with.
This amount would actually fund a couple of big hospitals, or several small ones, which certainly is worthwhile.
Especially when the fuel cost to most people is an inconvenience and something to complain about, rather than leading to genuine hardship. (For the most part that is, before anyone cites the minority who really do find that a 5p rise in fuel causes them to change their lifestyles).
We're too hung up on fuel prices, as I said earlier, its a default stance but for most people its an inconvenience rather than a major problem. Unlike when you need a hospital bed and can't get one.

 

[Stossgebet]

I'm not convinced of your figures. But more importantly, you make it sound like £1.8bn just isn't worth bothering with.
This amount would actually fund a couple of big hospitals, or several small ones, which certainly is worthwhile.
Especially when the fuel cost to most people is an inconvenience and something to complain about, rather than leading to genuine hardship. (For the most part that is, before anyone cites the minority who really do find that a 5p rise in fuel causes them to change their lifestyles).
We're too hung up on fuel prices, as I said earlier, its a default stance but for most people its an inconvenience rather than a major problem. Unlike when you need a hospital bed and can't get one.

The idea that a tax rise goes directly to spending on public services, isn't a guarantee. See how VAT was imposed on private schools 'to fund 6000 new teachers' in the state sector. And that has not happened. Indeed, teacher numbers have reduced in the year and a half since.

In reality, a few consultations on spending and projects, some funding for a quango (or 20 of them!), and not to mention anything towards the national debt!

What do we really get when people and politicians promise major spending? We saw it when Sunak killed HS2 phase 2 with a load of promises to spend the money on local projects instead. Did that really happen?
All we get is a tax rise, no one is happy, and any future politician that promises a tax cut, gets accused of doing so for the rich, even when the working classes may benefit most.

 

[Shrop]

The idea that a tax rise goes directly to spending on public services, isn't a guarantee. See how VAT was imposed on private schools 'to fund 6000 new teachers' in the state sector. And that has not happened. Indeed, teacher numbers have reduced in the year and a half since.

In reality, a few consultations on spending and projects, some funding for a quango (or 20 of them!), and not to mention anything towards the national debt!

What do we really get when people and politicians promise major spending? We saw it when Sunak killed HS2 phase 2 with a load of promises to spend the money on local projects instead. Did that really happen?
All we get is a tax rise, no one is happy, and any future politician that promises a tax cut, gets accused of doing so for the rich, even when the working classes may benefit most.

My point as upthread is that the public needs to be told where the money is going, and also to be able to have confidence in any such promises.
Sadly this is where our politicians fail time and again, by defaulting on their pledges.
IF we had a fuel price increase AND we could be guaranteed about where the revenue goes, THEN it would be worthwhile. Otherwise its just same old same old, sadly.

 

[Stossgebet]

My point as upthread is that the public needs to be told where the money is going, and also to be able to have confidence in any such promises.
Sadly this is where our politicians fail time and again, by defaulting on their pledges.
IF we had a fuel price increase AND we could be guaranteed about where the revenue goes, THEN it would be worthwhile. Otherwise its just same old same old, sadly.

Yes. I am all for ring fencing such finances.
And yes, the message has to be clear.
But be in now doubt, that if you take money from motorists (with their big lobby) and spend it elsewhere, while our roads are in an appalling state. I think it's a very hard sell. But the biggest win, would be getting back some integrity.

 

[6Gman]

I'm not convinced of your figures. But more importantly, you make it sound like £1.8bn just isn't worth bothering with.
This amount would actually fund a couple of big hospitals, or several small ones, which certainly is worthwhile.
Especially when the fuel cost to most people is an inconvenience and something to complain about, rather than leading to genuine hardship. (For the most part that is, before anyone cites the minority who really do find that a 5p rise in fuel causes them to change their lifestyles).
We're too hung up on fuel prices, as I said earlier, its a default stance but for most people its an inconvenience rather than a major problem. Unlike when you need a hospital bed and can't get one.

My £1.8bn comes from the BBC (3 month delay costs £450M); my £800bn comes from House of Commons Library.

Devoting the entire proceeds to the NHS would allow an overall budget increase of 0.7% (NHS spending has increased an average of 3.6% over recent decades). Its impact will be limited to say the least.

We (as individuals and through government) are living beyond our means on a scale that dwarfs the £1.8bn your suggestion - which I'd happily accept - would raise. The 2024-25 Budget had a gap of £153bn between income and expenditure.

And I don't blame the politicians, because they are simply doing what we demand/expect of them. Personally I'd vote for someone who said "we are living beyond our means, which will land future generations with huge debts. I will vote to increase taxes and cut spending until the books balance" but I doubt many others would!

 

[yorksrob]

My £1.8bn comes from the BBC (3 month delay costs £450M); my £800bn comes from House of Commons Library.

Devoting the entire proceeds to the NHS would allow an overall budget increase of 0.7% (NHS spending has increased an average of 3.6% over recent decades). Its impact will be limited to say the least.

We (as individuals and through government) are living beyond our means on a scale that dwarfs the £1.8bn your suggestion - which I'd happily accept - would raise. The 2024-25 Budget had a gap of £153bn between income and expenditure.

And I don't blame the politicians, because they are simply doing what we demand/expect of them. Personally I'd vote for someone who said "we are living beyond our means, which will land future generations with huge debts. I will vote to increase taxes and cut spending until the books balance" but I doubt many others would!

I'd rather someone look at the balance of payments deficit to see where wealth was leaking out of the country and do something about that. How much of that is lost when an off-shore entity buys a company by saddling it with debt.

How many domestic properties are owned by overseas landlords and how much wealth is unproductively exported etc.

 

[JohnofWessex]

Fuel Price Escalator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However it was abolished........

Consequences are

https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/Admin/uploads/the-unintended-consequences-of-freezing-fuel-duty-01-06-18.pdf

Basically we drive more in unsuitable vehicles