» Tuesday, June 1, 2004

Fuel Prices

Asked how high the Prime Minister believed the price of petrol might go, the PMOS pointed out that it was not the Prime Minister’s job to determine petrol prices. That was the role of the oil market. Put to him that the Prime Minister must have thought about the issue and have a formed a personal view, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had no intention of engaging in TV reality shows and making public pronouncements about the price of the oil market. It was his job to work with his colleagues and make representations to OPEC and others, as the Government would no doubt do at the OPEC meeting this Thursday.

Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news


  1. paraphrased

    "Look stupid if the price goes up we get more VAT. We can blame someone else for the problem AND keep our 2p rise in tax in September. However if prices rise by more than 5% we can withdraw the September 2p – look good to our potential voters and still get extra income from the VAT element."

    Comment by Roger Huffadine — 2 Jun 2004 on 1:24 pm | Link
  2. Oh, come on, let’s be serious. There’s bugger all that Tony can do about the price of oil, other than not have become embroiled in an Iraq war in the first place.

    Not even the U.S. controls OPEC. That’s why I’m so looking forward to watching a new Iraqi government rejoin it.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 2 Jun 2004 on 5:15 pm | Link
  3. The biggest con was when fuel was changed to litres from gallons. The tax used to go up by 2p a gallon – now 2p a litre. How come they didnt increase it by the gallon equivilant ! Its about time they started using some of the money to fund research into alternative fuel supplies and do something useful.

    Comment by Tony — 2 Jun 2004 on 10:06 pm | Link
  4. Chicken and egg, there. Here’s an alternate theory: They knew that they had to hike the tax up by 4p, but didn’t want the public outrage of that number appearing on front pages, so they change over to litres strategically to avoid talking about the increased rate hike.

    Mind you, given that current taxation doesn’t reflect the true cost of fuel to the environment, I’m hard pressed to rush to the defense of a bunch of fat-arsed moms in entirely impractical SUVs rushing their middle-classed brats to school.

    "You are your mother’s darling child, brought up with fret and trouble;
    For fear a spoon would hurt your mouth, she fed you with a shovel."

    I’d love to see a huge tax on petrol-inefficient vehicles. Add 15% to the list price of anything that does less than 25MPG, and watch thousands of outraged moms, hair akimbo and Tammy Fae Baker makeup streaming from tear-filled eyes, about how they can’t possibly take their kids to school in anything less than a camper van, and how their children are too good for public transport while happily feeding them crap food from McDonalds because they can’t be arsed to cook.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 3 Jun 2004 on 8:35 am | Link
  5. 4th June
    Wots new?
    TB has just been on the telly saying that the tax on fuel is under review.
    Sadly he didn’t say that he had been to this Blog and seen my message:-(

    Comment by Roger Huffadine — 4 Jun 2004 on 10:12 am | Link
  6. Why is diesel fuel for cars so much more expensive that petrol ie 1 litre of unleaded petrol 78.9 pence 1 litre of diesel 85.9 pence
    who is profiteering

    Comment by remo Agostini — 1 Mar 2005 on 5:39 pm | Link
  7. If we are going to continue paying nearly \xA31 per litre we MUST have a government that WILL invest into new technology for TOMORROW and not 10 years from now because our planet is dying. The people that lead us must listen! Tony!

    Comment by Kevin Dawe — 8 Sep 2005 on 1:43 pm | Link
  8. It is tony Blair’s job to listen to the public. cars can be converted to run on cooking oil at a fee of around \xA31000, why arent more people doing it?! Ok, so the car smells like you walked past KFC but no harmful gases emmitted and much mor eenvironment friendly. I think to future proof I have done this and works wonders. All this time the government never mentioned it in any of their campaigns…Call this a government?

    Comment by Nik — 8 Sep 2005 on 4:30 pm | Link
  9. It is tony Blair’s job to listen to the public. cars can be converted to run on cooking oil at a fee of around \xA31000, why arent more people doing it?! Ok, so the car smells like you walked past KFC but no harmful gases emmitted and much mor eenvironment friendly. I think to future proof I have done this and works wonders. All this time the government never mentioned it in any of their campaigns…Call this a government?

    Comment by Nik — 8 Sep 2005 on 4:31 pm | Link
  10. "cars can be converted to run on cooking oil at a fee of around \xA31000"

    I live in Perth, West Australia. Last week I saw a BUS. This bus LOOKED just like any other bus but it was VERY different. This bus ran on STEAM. Why is this no good for cars?

    Comment by Bill — 9 Sep 2005 on 4:53 am | Link
  11. Hydrogen has been much touted as a potential fuel; last I saw, the problems were in storage & filling with hydrogen being so explosive. I’m sure though that the technology we have available, something will come of it.

    The problem as I see it is not so much with the existence of alternative forms of fuel. The problem is having the political will to deploy them. And we just haven’t got it. Too much of our whole economy is geared to run on oil, too many people make too much money in the oil business and they ain’t going to give that up without a fight. The way things are going, their hand may be forced in the not too distant future; the destruction of Hurricane Katrina has shown the USA how fragile the whole supply/demand balance is right now. Whilst we may not have actually arrived at Peak Oil (the Saudis have only recently admitted that they can’t, in fact, increase production like they’ve been saying for the past 5 years that they could) we must be getting very close and it’s going to become a stand-up fight for every drop that’s left in the ground.

    Now that the environmental movement is slowly but surely becoming more widespread, more and more people are opening their eyes to the excesses of our modern governmental systems and more and more are starting to see that a lot of the excesses are self-supporting deceptions designed solely to support and maintain the status quo. And most of these are based on oil or its derivatives. To move away from an oil-based society would need the whole fabric of society as it currently stands to change; that just isn’t going to happen. This planet is dying (and not slowly) purely and simply because of personal greed. No-one wants to give up what they have – and so nothing will change.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Sep 2005 on 9:11 am | Link
  12. Just a few observations:

    The price of fuel could, according to some informed colleagues, get up to $100 per barrel within the near future.

    Much of the UK pump price is actually tax revenue.

    LPG fuelled vehicles are not so uncommon, even though this itself is a finite resource. Electrically powered vehicles will lead to greatly increased CO2 emissions by power stations, as will production of Hydrogen. But at least electricity and hydrogen powered vehicles do not emit particulates and other pollutants. Ultimately this comes down to a case for large numbers of nuclear power stations and it may be that the Iranians (for example) have realised this.

    Neither Bush nor Blair will do anything to upset their oil industry supporters. They’ll wait until public outcry is such that they are ‘forced into’ taking action. However, such action will actually be determined by the multi-national oil industries who will dictate terms to the national governments.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 9 Sep 2005 on 12:56 pm | Link
  13. All comments are on the reason for fuel price increases.

    Let me just bring this back to reality!!

    We were told that by privatisation – this would produce ‘competition’!!

    We were told that the Natural Gas fields would be our fuel ‘saviour’

    Comment: How does the fuel increase affect the politicians who are already wealthy!!

    How can the Government continue to levy VAT on this commodity which is totally necessary to life?

    How can the Government still levy a ridiculous tax burden on the retired?

    How can the Government still support – with billions of pounds’ other Countrys who are hell bent on self destruction whilst keeping the elderly and less priviledge in poverty?

    We keep being told that we are a wealthy Nation.

    Does this mean ‘wealthy for the favoured few’ or are we being ‘conned’ that our pensioners and lower earners in the view of these wealthy beuracrats are ‘better off’??

    Hello? – does anybody really listen?

    To those in Government – GET REALL – I am sure that the electorate are by now convinced what will happen at the next election.

    I am!!

    Stuart Fox

    Comment by Stuart Fox — 4 Sep 2006 on 7:27 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


June 2004
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« May   Jul »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh