Petrol and diesel prices - how much have you been paying?

[JamesT]

Any rise in retailers' costs (in this case no reduction in fuel duty) may encourage some the recoup that amount by raising prices.

I do wonder if the RAC have solely been considering retailers margins on their petrol sales. Previously the supermarkets used petrol as almost a loss leader to get shoppers in to buy their other products. With the cost of living pressures people now have, there’s been a switch to keep a lid on groceries to retain shoppers so the price of fuel has risen to retain some profit margin.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Previously the supermarkets used petrol as almost a loss leader to get shoppers in to buy their other products.

Wonder whether Asda's + Morrison's financial positions (both now have significant financing costs associated with debt) are such that they are no longer willing or able to sell petrol/diesel at deeply discounted prices?

 

[JamesT]

Wonder whether Asda's + Morrison's financial positions (both now have significant financing costs associated with debt) are such that they are no longer willing or able to sell petrol/diesel at deeply discounted prices?

Asda always used to be the cheapest around me such that I would fill up there if I happened to be going near. Currently PetrolPrices is saying 139.7p, whereas Tesco is 136.9p.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Tesco Havant's B7 diesel £138.9 / litre at present. Been a while since I could buy a tank of diesel at sub-£1.40 / litre

 

[ABB125]

BP garage on the A5 Nesscliffe bypass ("Nesscliffe Services") was a comparatively inexpensive 139.9 petrol/142.9 diesel earlier today. Meanwhile, Selly Oak Sainsbury's was 138.9 petrol, around here in Birmingham is normally reasonably-priced.
134.9/139.9 at the consistently cheapest garage (independent) between home and university.

 

[Ivor]

Today Asda Ferring (West Sussex) petrol £137.7

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Today Asda Ferring (West Sussex) petrol £137.7

That's expensive unless your vehicle possibly has a large fuel tank and that's the price for 100 litres!

My local Asda currently charging £1.347 per litre for E10 petrol. Diesel continues to be about 5p per litre dearer.

Having said that, yesterday saw a couple of filling stations just off the M6 (Todhills - on the section North of Carlisle), somewhat opportunistically charging more than £1.65 per litre for petrol.

Anywhere charging even more than that?

 

[SteveHFC]

Local Sainsbury's (Dunstable) charging £1.31.9 for E10 petrol this morning. £1.37.9 for diesel and £1.43.9 for E5 petrol. Tesco nearby is charging the same.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

139.9p for petrol at Sainsbury’s Marsh Mills in Plymouth. Diesel is 143.9p.

The local BP and Texaco garages are about the same price, if not a little cheaper. The supermarkets certainly aren’t cheaper anymore…

 

[Shrop]

Ellesmere (Shropshire) - Shrewsbury Road, Petrol £135.9, Diesel £139.9.

 

[75A]

Paid £131.9 @ Tesco's in Wellingboro this morning for petrol.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Morrison's in North East Manchester charging £1.317 per litre for E10 petrol yesterday. Tesco was £0.002 more!

 

[Shrop]

I did also notice the price of £129.9 for E5 at Costco (Chester) a few days ago

 

[GardenRail]

£1.26.9 for E5 at Jet in South Elmsall, Pontefract. No doubt Labour will sort it out in the budget this month.

 

[92002]

Currently around £1.31 for petrol and £1.35 for diesel in the Glasgow area. Best to fill up before the budgetm

 

[AM9]

£1.26.9 for E5 at Jet in South Elmsall, Pontefract. No doubt Labour will sort it out in the budget this month.

Hopefully, restore the pre 2012 proportion of the duty. Temporary removal of the fuel escalator was acceptable in the recession 12 years ago, but that recession has run it's course so there's an opportunity to restore at least some of the contribution from IC vehicle users.

 

[Starmill]

Prior to 23 March 2011 fuel duty was at 58.95p / litre.

According to the Bank of England inflation calculator this is equivalent to approximately 84p today, rounded down to the next whole penny.

Today's rate at 52.95p is therefore at a discount of a hair over 31p per litre, or a stonking 36% cut since 2011.

My guess is Reeves will continue this cut throughout the Parliament and won't be brave enough to bring it back up to 2011 rates. I hope she does, but...

To put it another way fuel duty needs to rise by 60% from today's rates to return to parity, plus however much inflation is over the period between now and whenever it's measured to.

If Reeves wants more money to pay for things like better buses and trains or better maintenance of existing public highways, on top of the (higher priority) demands for social care and healthcare, defence, justice, education and universities she would need to be looking at a premium over the 2011 rates, as in 2011 we were deliberately underspending on all of the above, so we realistically should be looking at another 5p on top. More like a 70% increase, or a 36p rise.

 

[GardenRail]

Public transport workers who NEED a car to get to work, because there is no alternative at 04.30am should get a fuel discount card. You heard it here first....

 

[MotCO]

Prior to 23 March 2011 fuel duty was at 58.95p / litre.

According to the Bank of England inflation calculator this is equivalent to approximately 84p today, rounded down to the next whole penny.

Today's rate at 52.95p is therefore at a discount of a hair over 31p per litre, or a stonking 36% cut since 2011.

My guess is Reeves will continue this cut throughout the Parliament and won't be brave enough to bring it back up to 2011 rates. I hope she does, but...

To put it another way fuel duty needs to rise by 60% from today's rates to return to parity, plus however much inflation is over the period between now and whenever it's measured to.

If Reeves wants more money to pay for things like better buses and trains or better maintenance of existing public highways, on top of the (higher priority) demands for social care and healthcare, defence, justice, education and universities she would need to be looking at a premium over the 2011 rates, as in 2011 we were deliberately underspending on all of the above, so we realistically should be looking at another 5p on top. More like a 70% increase, or a 36p rise.

You can choose any starting point you like. Going back even further, VAT was only 15% in 2008, and given that VAT is charged on top of Duty, then changes in VAT levels should also be taken into account. Also VAT rises when petrol prices rise, whereas Duty doesn't.

 

[AM9]

Public transport workers who NEED a car to get to work, because there is no alternative at 04.30am should get a fuel discount card. You heard it here first....

A more effective solution to that would be a tax allowance based on the actual mileage travelled to work for an average vehicle. Thyat would prevent leisure mileage being claimed, and unnecessarily thirsty vehicle choice.

 

[Richard Scott]

Hopefully, restore the pre 2012 proportion of the duty. Temporary removal of the fuel escalator was acceptable in the recession 12 years ago, but that recession has run it's course so there's an opportunity to restore at least some of the contribution from IC vehicle users.

Why just IC users? I have a relatively light car compared to overweight EVs, which does an awful lot less damage to roads and doesn't contain batteries with dubious ethical origins (where do all those materials come from to make said batteries?).
Those heavy EVs also produce a lot more particulates from their oversized tyres (which also contain numerous nasty materials) than my lighter car does.
Zero emissions, really?
Starmer and all his cabinet fail to speak about this when singing on about their green policies.

 

[GardenRail]

Why just IC users? I have a relatively light car compared to overweight EVs, which does an awful lot less damage to roads and doesn't contain batteries with dubious ethical origins (where do all those materials come from to make said batteries?).
Those heavy EVs also produce a lot more particulates from their oversized tyres (which also contain numerous nasty materials) than my lighter car does.
Zero emissions, really?
Starmer and all his cabinet fail to speak about this when singing on about their green policies.

Fully agree, but be prepared to be shot down, such is this forum....

 

[AM9]

Why just IC users? I have a relatively light car compared to overweight EVs, which does an awful lot less damage to roads and doesn't contain batteries with dubious ethical origins (where do all those materials come from to make said batteries?).
Those heavy EVs also produce a lot more particulates from their oversized tyres (which also contain numerous nasty materials) than my lighter car does.
Zero emissions, really?
Starmer and all his cabinet fail to speak about this when singing on about their green policies.

The direction of travel with tax and duty levels is (and has been for decades) to address CO2 and NOx emissions - particularly as the former affects everybody whether they are near a road or not. 'Zero emissions' is at the point of use. Also, it has been stated here* that EV tyre wear is about the same as for ICVs as the formulation of the tyres is adjusted to ensure that. I've not seen their tyres as 'oversized' for the same role vehicles.
*- I can't find the post from a long time owner of an EV as my time is limited.

 

[Richard Scott]

The direction of travel with tax and duty levels is (and has been for decades) to address CO2 and NOx emissions - particularly as the former affects everybody whether they are near a road or not. 'Zero emissions' is at the point of use. Also, it has been stated here* that EV tyre wear is about the same as for ICVs as the formulation of the tyres is adjusted to ensure that. I've not seen their tyres as 'oversized' for the same role vehicles.
*- I can't find the post from a long time owner of an EV as my time is limited.

Tyre wear is same as larger tyres are made out of slightly different compounds. The fact that larger (wider) tyres give off more particulates cannot be disputed and EVs have to have larger (wider) tyres to support their extra weight is also a fact.

 

[AM9]

Tyre wear is same as larger tyres are made out of slightly different compounds. The fact that larger (wider) tyres give off more particulates cannot be disputed and EVs have to have larger (wider) tyres to support their extra weight is also a fact.

If considering the latest models of EV which are the most likely to be bought in the future,as well as price, the difference in weight is rapidly narrowing (see the Stellantis car discussed in this thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...les-is-realistic.231438/page-125#post-6983812) where it is below 100kg. I imagine that tyre size and wear will be significantly the same for all practical purposes.

 

[Shrop]

Prior to 23 March 2011 fuel duty was at 58.95p / litre.

According to the Bank of England inflation calculator this is equivalent to approximately 84p today, rounded down to the next whole penny.

Today's rate at 52.95p is therefore at a discount of a hair over 31p per litre, or a stonking 36% cut since 2011.

My guess is Reeves will continue this cut throughout the Parliament and won't be brave enough to bring it back up to 2011 rates. I hope she does, but...

To put it another way fuel duty needs to rise by 60% from today's rates to return to parity, plus however much inflation is over the period between now and whenever it's measured to.

If Reeves wants more money to pay for things like better buses and trains or better maintenance of existing public highways, on top of the (higher priority) demands for social care and healthcare, defence, justice, education and universities she would need to be looking at a premium over the 2011 rates, as in 2011 we were deliberately underspending on all of the above, so we realistically should be looking at another 5p on top. More like a 70% increase, or a 36p rise.

Food for thought ...
Fuel duty has always been far too low, it needs to reflect the true costs of motoring. For example every car journey becomes part of the congestion that delays others, but no-one thinks about that. (I won't start on pollution, accident risks etc here, but they're all pretty much not costed fairly). People take their cars out for all manner of reasons just because it's so easy, and yes why not when you've paid to own it and tax it etc, but there's still a huge unfairness when people happily pay many thousands for capabilities they will never use (I could go on about 4WD cars here), but then they complain about fuel prices.
A fairer fuel duty would be considerably higher, but it should NOT be used to subsidise other things, it should be used to help people to travel more fairly and wisely. Partly by having better rail and bus services, but also to facilitate better private travel, such that taxis can be much more readily available from homes out of reach of public transport, at more affordable prices. Think about this one, most cars sit idle for well over 90% of the time, so why not use them more efficiently, and get people to think a bit more about their travel? Those advocating driverless cars could think about this, perhaps all driverless cars could be available to rent only, not to own, and used to supplement the services provided by buses and trains.
I could go on, but surely this is food for constructive thought ...

 

[signed]

Fuel duty has always been far too low, it needs to reflect the true costs of motoring

It should, but the car lobby would do anything for that not to happen, it seems extremely strong in the UK, and it would disproportionally impact workers that rely on their cars to go to night shifts and al.

 

[JamesT]

Food for thought ...
Fuel duty has always been far too low, it needs to reflect the true costs of motoring. For example every car journey becomes part of the congestion that delays others, but no-one thinks about that. (I won't start on pollution, accident risks etc here, but they're all pretty much not costed fairly). People take their cars out for all manner of reasons just because it's so easy, and yes why not when you've paid to own it and tax it etc, but there's still a huge unfairness when people happily pay many thousands for capabilities they will never use (I could go on about 4WD cars here), but then they complain about fuel prices.
A fairer fuel duty would be considerably higher, but it should NOT be used to subsidise other things, it should be used to help people to travel more fairly and wisely. Partly by having better rail and bus services, but also to facilitate better private travel, such that taxis can be much more readily available from homes out of reach of public transport, at more affordable prices. Think about this one, most cars sit idle for well over 90% of the time, so why not use them more efficiently, and get people to think a bit more about their travel? Those advocating driverless cars could think about this, perhaps all driverless cars could be available to rent only, not to own, and used to supplement the services provided by buses and trains.
I could go on, but surely this is food for constructive thought ...

I'm not sure your examples are particularly suited for arguing for higher fuel duty. Congestion and taking up public space are caused by vehicles of all methods of propulsion. That would suggest per-mile charging and high taxation of parking spaces to avoid people buying EVs to avoid the duty but still causing the problem.

 

[Shrop]

It should, but the car lobby would do anything for that not to happen, it seems extremely strong in the UK, and it would disproportionally impact workers that rely on their cars to go to night shifts and al.

But that's my point, people who work night shifts, or away from bus or train routes, would still have access to taxis (perhaps driverless) at much lower cost than they do today.

I'm not sure your examples are particularly suited for arguing for higher fuel duty. Congestion and taking up public space are caused by vehicles of all methods of propulsion. That would suggest per-mile charging and high taxation of parking spaces to avoid people buying EVs to avoid the duty but still causing the problem.

It doesn't need to be unfair, it just needs thinking about carefully. The present system for EVs avoiding paying for some things isn't set in stone, it could be changed.

 

[Starmill]

You can choose any starting point you like. Going back even further, VAT was only 15% in 2008, and given that VAT is charged on top of Duty, then changes in VAT levels should also be taken into account. Also VAT rises when petrol prices rise, whereas Duty doesn't.

Well I chose the starting point deliberately because it's what applied for the first full year of the previous Conservative-led government, so the Conservatives can scarcely complain about it

Of course, they will anyway, they'll just be hypocrites when they do.

More importantly however the cut to15% was always time-limited. The 20% rate is permanent and nobody has suggested any changes for many years so I'm not sure how it's relevant now. Same goes for the 5p cut, it's timebound so to keep it would require more and more funding.

I'm not sure your examples are particularly suited for arguing for higher fuel duty. Congestion and taking up public space are caused by vehicles of all methods of propulsion. That would suggest per-mile charging and high taxation of parking spaces to avoid people buying EVs to avoid the duty but still causing the problem.

Those are a lot more difficult to implement politically. And in any case the effect on congestion of running one or two extra buses and hour on an urban route is tiny compared with those same people travelling by single occupancy car.