[llBen]

Signed :thumbsup:

The UK needs all the innovative ideas it can get if it ever hopes to pull itself out of the shit storm its currently facing.

 

[llBen]

After MANY arguments with my local MP about the debate, before the new budget details were announced I sent over a few more emails to express my opinion. Here's what I eventually got back.

I acknowledge receipt of your circular sent in support of FairFuelUK.

“FairFuel” is wrong to suggest that “the Chancellor could have “reduced petrol and diesel tax and been no worse off in overall revenue “ unless, of course, it is suggested that the cancellation of the duty rise would have been preferable to an increase in personal allowance that will benefit some 24 million people. Alternatively, I suppose, he could have left the Working Tax and Child Tax proposals unrefined and disadvantaged all of the people that will now be better off as a result of his fine-tuning.

All budget decisions are a question of judgement and, as the Chancellor has made clear to those of us who have discussed this with him in person, the loss of £1.5 billion in revenue that could have been dissipated through oil price rises and consequent rises at the pumps did not seem like good value for money when compared with the assistance that he has been able to extend to low and middle income families and to pensioners (through the £140 single-tier payment) as an alternative. Faced with these arguments I believe that the Chancellor has made the correct judgement.

Yours ever
Sir Roger Gale, MP

I didn't even know where to start... What a dick. It's all about the quickest way to make the largest number of people better off in the short term... rather than what will actually help repair our economy ¬_¬

What they don't seem to be able to get through their thick skulls to their tiny brains is that creating new taxes and duties to fuel further short term promises doesn't do a thing for the £150bn additional debt we take on every year.

Ludicrous.

(Sorry, rant over)

 

[llBen]

Ah unfortunately the note about circulars is just my MP being a d-bag. I sent him one circular like 2 years ago when FairFuelUK first came to my attention, and we argued about whether he should listen or respond to them... His argument was effectively that as an individual my opinion was as a minority and not worth the time of day, and as part of a huge campaign he didn't have time for it because he believes that it is an illegitimate way of drawing attention to the matter. My argument was... how the f**k am I meant to voice my opinion then??

Since that first message, every email has been written by myself... trying to appeal to whatever better judgement he may have. Unfortunately he has been MP in the area for decades and will likely retire this year - as with most MPs he doesn't have a clue what real world costs everyone else in the country has to account for.

EDIT: In fact, it's a bit TLDR but here's how my last reply went (to which of course I didn't receive a reply).

Thank you for acknowledging my message. At this point having personally invested a significant amount of time into the issue I feel that it be incumbent for us to leave the matter of 'circulars' aside.

Unfortunately it seems that this is where the government is going wrong. To have the thought process of 'we need to spend £1.5bn to make people happy, where can it come from and what should it go toward' is a disaster in the making. For the most part I am inclined to agree that the personal allowance, working tax and child tax proposals are of high priority... but to bring about suggestion that the debate is a choice between one source of income over another in fact misses the point of the CEBR findings entirely.

A 2.5 pence cut in fuel duty would create an estimated 175,000 jobs within 12 months. If the government insists on financial planning that consistently involves spending money it simply doesn't have, then there is a very strong argument that a rise in fuel duty will cause a catastrophic loss of jobs, thereby removing the source of 'income' by which Mr. Osborne plans to fund his other tax proposals (and I use the word "income" VERY loosely given the precarious nature of our nation's finances). If it wishes to continue spending in this way then the government needs to raise employment- real, private sector, money-earning economy-stimulating employment.

The simple fact of the matter is that the rise in the cost of fuel will ultimately affect the cost of everything in Britain- we are not just talking about a loss to professional drivers. The additional duty will impact the quality of transport services that are already struggling to meet demand, and everything from riding the bus to sending a parcel will be more expensive as well as less reliable and/or convenient for everyone.

I am quite upset by your attitude and approach to the issue. I do not profess that these decisions are simple, but do find it incredibly convenient that the decisions made propose changes that will leave the maximum number of voters better off in the short term. This approach has totally failed to address the £165+bn annual overspend that is slowly leading our country to a total financial collapse. We shan't likely be here to see it for ourselves, but it most certainly WILL happen to our children and our children's children.

Short-term perks will be short-lived. Right now our kids are born into debt- 'owing' £16,000+ before they have even opened their eyes for the first time. By the time they start work, the debt is well above £40,000. With respect that you have your own opinions, I am unable to see any justifications for your position that Mr. Osborne is making the correct proposals.

I am supporting a campaign which offers a realistic proposal to get our country's economy back on the mend. If you haven't yet done so, please actually read the CEBR report here http://fairfueluk.com/FairFuelUKCEBRreport.pdf

Regards,
Ben Palmer