Consider that fuel is cheaper than it was two years ago, and yet almost everything else is a lot more expensive. So yes, a price hike ought to be on the cards especially given how much debt the new Govt claims to be in, but you can be certain that the press would go hysterical about it with reporters doing everything they can to cause panic buying!
I believe they have stopped any land sale of the HS2 alignment. Some kind of coherent plan probably needs to emerge from the mayors before they can do any more on high speed rail. At present Burnham's underground Piccadilly is likely to be a major stumbling point, postponing delivery of anything useful by at least five years.
That was an unusually high period of fuel prices, It'd probably be more reasonable to take the average.Consider that fuel is cheaper than it was two years ago, and yet almost everything else is a lot more expensive. So yes, a price hike ought to be on the cards especially given how much debt the new Govt claims to be in, but you can be certain that the press would go hysterical about it with reporters doing everything they can to cause panic buying!
What basis do you think there is for a legal challenge?
Fuel prices in comparison with the retail price index are now the lowest they've been since the year 2000. Or, since you don't like me citing 2 years ago, let's try going back 10 years. In 2023 the price of petrol was exactly the same as it was in 2013. In the same 10 year period, the retail price index rose by 47%.
Fuel duty was frozen for about a decade then a 5p cut made which did nothing good. This tax situation is now a Pandora's box: keep it where it is and have budget shortfalls worsen, or raise it and face a backlash, as well as raising inflation. I think they should at least reverse the 5p cut Sunak made, but going further will be too far.Consider that fuel is cheaper than it was two years ago, and yet almost everything else is a lot more expensive. So yes, a price hike ought to be on the cards especially given how much debt the new Govt claims to be in, but you can be certain that the press would go hysterical about it with reporters doing everything they can to cause panic buying!
So there would be a big rise in jobs for driving instructors and examiners, would that be a bad thing? And a significant focus on road safety, not a bad thing either, I mean how many of us complain about the bad driving and parking of others? At present 35 people in the UK will be dead this time next week due to bad driving, and many hundreds more will be hospitalised with life changing injuries, and none of these people yet know who they are. Think about this. Then there is the potential to reduce insurance premiums if safety improves. All worth thought.
There has NEVER been a war motorists (by any Govt) all there has ever been is scandalmongering and paranoid journalists trying to create headlines, including deliberately causing panic buying for fuel purely so that they can then report on it. Motorists are generally treated more leniently than people in any other walk of life, in comparison with the responsibilities they carry, and the deaths and injuries they cause. The only unreasonable hardship they suffer is being penalised for very small margins of speed limit excesses, but that's a different matter.
You haven't missed anything. Labour aren't proposing anything to do with the driving test, they're just not interested. Just like the Tories, they're all too scared to address transport matters seriously.
Answering this before reading anyone else's replies. So far I think they've done ok but can we really judge after just two months? Surely it is better to judge in two or three years time once we (and they) have had a chance to see the effects of the decisions they are making? I think deep down we all knew they were going to have to make some unpopular decisions to repair the mess they've inherited.
They might be Millionaires solely on 'paper' due to owning a house which has skyrocketed in value since they purchased it, but still be struggling day to day*. After-all having a house valued at £1,000,000 is different than having 1 million in the bank account or in other liquid assets.
Next you'll be saying that those with a house worth £1,000,000 could be classed as poor! I feel sure that many of those who have a house worth less than a quarter of that, who also have little or no savings and an income of, say, just £14,000 per year, would be absolutely delighted to swap with them, and more than happy to take on the "burden" of having to sell up and downsize!
People who have spent years of study and racked up debts in the process, and are now actually treating sick patients, often with limited supervision, and you call them apprentices.
Or as The Telegraph saw it:
We could always continue to import doctors from the rest of the world while our own graduates emigrate to Australia for better income, to the detriment of both ourselves (receiving no return for the costs of training doctors at home) and the countries of origin for migrant doctors (who lose valuable workers). I do wonder how many complain about our immigration policy and big pay rises to these workers, failing to realise the correlation.
Then put contracts on those doctors that if they choose to leave within so many years after training, they will be forced to pay back a percentage of the training cost. Similar to other industries when they invest in staff. If someone wants to emigrate to a sunnier climate, then even paying them £100,000 a year won't stop them leaving.
Next you'll be saying that those with a house worth £1,000,000 could be classed as poor! I feel sure that many of those who have a house worth less than a quarter of that, who also have little or no savings and an income of, say, just £14,000 per year, would be absolutely delighted to swap with them, and more than happy to take on the "burden" of having to sell up and downsize!
x.com
Or maybe we could do both? There are plenty of professions which pay better than doctors, nurses, etc., despite arguably being of lesser importance to society, and these workers will put the extra money back into the economy at the level of salary we're talking about so it's not a waste. We have 100k vacancies in healthcare in the UK which has negative implications across the whole of society. Increasing pay is one part of the solution, better incentives to stay in the UK is another, and their will be others on top, there is no silver bullet and putting down the profession is definitely not the answer.
I'm not sure why you would say this. Equity release schemes are widely available which allow elderly people to stay their property, while releasing funds, up to half the value of the property if necessary. So if the house is worth £1m, and £500,000 could be released, would the additional £250 or so really be that important to them? It would surely be fairer to give this to those on low incomes with small houses who genuinely are struggling, but who are just above the "threshold". The problem with this Govt (since that's what this thread is about), is that they don't appear capable of dealing with this fairly.
Well said indeed. After at least five years, if not more, of constant, populist short-termism, part of me is inclined to believe that not many people are well-acquainted with the idea of short-term pain for long-term gain. At least Starmer does seem to be governing with the next five years in mind, rather than the next five days' worth of opinion polls. I think that's definitely a benefit of having someone in charge who isn't terribly political - he doesn't seem to be constantly fussing about public opinion now that he's in Number 10. Obviously, there is a point at which such insulation becomes a bad thing, but this definitely isn't one of them. The guts to make unpopular decisions for long-term benefit - and I'm not sure anyone can argue that trying to eliminate a fiscal black hole isn't a long-term benefit - is the very embodiment of "country before party". To misquote The Princess Bride: life is pain - anyone who says differently is trying to win the next election.
