Fuel Strike Theory..........

[12gauge]

Yeah, and car scrappage was meant to bring demand forward too, pre-election, as was the VAT cut.

government in cynical short termism shocker...

[Marf]

Cyder said:

Dixie68 said:

Why are you obsessed with Maggie, Linley?

Stole 'is milk before closing t'pit. Probably shot his whippet and sold his flat cap too ey bah gum lad.

They'll be taxing his 'ot pasties next.

[Lost_BMW]

Marf said:

Cyder said:

Dixie68 said:

Why are you obsessed with Maggie, Linley?

Stole 'is milk before closing t'pit. Probably shot his whippet and sold his flat cap too ey bah gum lad.

They'll be taxing his 'ot pasties next.

".. taxing 'is 'ott pasties next" surely, me duck? Or is it flower?

Though the Telegraph article suggests he is right!

Edited by Lost_BMW on Monday 2nd April 12:06

[speedy_thrills]

New spending is likely to displace other spending until wages rise in real terms or households repay debt.

[Marf]

Lost_BMW said:

".. taxing 'is 'ott pasties next" surely, me duck? Or is it flower?

I'm not sure pet.

[superkartracer]

jonah35 said:

could this be the extra injection the economy needed to prevent us from slipping into recession?

No it was people just being ultra thick, the money gained was little, would need to be Billions to have any real effect

[theaxe]

1981linley said:

No, no....you have it all wrong...the government engineered it so they could have their Thatcher moment, stockpiling loads of the commodity the strikers have in their possession, in her case a solid fuel, coal, in theirs liquid fuel, so that the impact of any strike would be minimal a everyone would have more than enough to get by on, thus breaking the power of the Unions.

Indeed. The power of the strike was disruption to the Easter weekend. By getting people to 'panic' early they ensured that most of the tanks in the country were 3/4 by the time Easter came around. I thought it was all handled very well.

[mrmr96]

The Hypno-Toad said:

Or.....

The government engineered the shortages so that they would get lots of lovely fuel duty in right now.

Then when they announce that the 3 pence duty rise is going to be suspended/delayed later in the year they will have already got some money in the bank.

Just a thought.....

No, it won't work like that.

We'll assume that usage remains largely unaffected.

But by encouraging people to brim their tanks it means that they are buying "today" fuel which they would otherwise have bought "next week". (E.g. if you're a person who puts in £20 when it's empty, and you use £20 per week. Then assume you brim today and put £60 in, then you'll keep using it at £20 per week, and so you'll go for 3 weeks without filling, then be empty and put £20 in again. The total spend, and hence total tax, is the same. But you have accelerated two weeks worth of fuel purchases into March.)

So overall take will be the same, but some of April's fuel purchases happened in March instead. If there was a large financial value then this acceleration of spend MAY be enough to stop the country reporting negative growth for Jan-Mar. Doing this stunt at any time other than the final week of March would be ineffective, but by doing it as it has been done, you'll find Jan-Mar turnover higher, at the expense of Apr turnover.

So the theory is plausible, in theory at least!

[Twincam16]

I have heard one 'conspiracy theory' in relation to all this.

The budget hasn't exactly been kind to, well, anyone, unless you were in the 50% income tax bracket. The 3p rise in fuel duty due in August wasn't swept under the carpet as such but it certainly wasn't publicised widely and none of the papers really picked it up and ran with it.

So, with panic buying at the pumps provoked, stations had an 'excuse' to raise petrol prices. I saw it with my own eyes - as stocks ran down, some of my local stations whacked the price up by...

...well I'll be damned, about 3p a litre.

I wonder whether, when the tax rise comes in August, the stations will lower their prices by 3p a litre and no-one will notice the sudden record high price following the rise, and therefore won't start a riot/blockade/etc over such things when the new duty is levied.

Because I've heard that there's this big sports thing on in August, and the government know that if it gets disrupted it'll make them, y'know, look bad in a way that people will remember come election time.

[tonyvid]

Aha, found it after reading this a few days ago...

Interesting theory and more came to light at the end of last week. On BBC news they were talking about the retail economy and it was pretty flat in March. The final figures were 0.4% up on last year and of that 0.3% came in the last week due to panic buying on fuel! Quite a close run thing there.

I'm going to start panic buying tin foil for my hat now!

[P-Jay]

I came up with my own crack-pot theory along these lines last week (or maybe the week before).

Anyway, that ego admission aside, even if it wasn't planned, every motorist in the UK bringing forward a £50-£100 or so purchase from Q2, back into Q1 certainly would have helped put Q1 in the black if it was close and avoided a recession. It will hurt Q2 of course, but that's less important, because firstly it's not predicted to be so tough, and secondly there has to be two consecutive months in the red before it's a recession.

Which, might, just might explain why the powers that be were advising the public to stock pile fuel in the last few days of Q1, even though a strike hadn't been planned yet and at least 1 weeks notice wouldn't have had to be given which lead to the 'run' on the fuel stations.

[martin84]

If the economy is at the stage where Ministers need to encourage people to panic buy fuel at the end of a quarter purely to delay the recession becoming official then arent we as good as in recession and shouldnt we be doing something about it?

[pingu393]

martin84 said:

If the economy is at the stage where Ministers need to encourage people to panic buy fuel at the end of a quarter purely to delay the recession becoming official then arent we as good as in recession and shouldn't we be doing something about it?

One could argue that the way out of recession is to stop saving and start spending.

[martin84]

pingu393 said:

One could argue that the way out of recession is to stop saving and start spending.

Well Osborne's Plan A isn't working as I've said on here more than once. A plan which might not work quickly enough is better than a plan which won't work at all.

[fido]

martin84 said:

Well Osborne's Plan A isn't working as I've said on here more than once.

By what criteria is it not working? You think Incapability Brown would have done any better? Look at the PIGS as to why you cannot spend your way out of a recession (when you haven't got a healthy balance sheet to start with). Ireland are making far more drastic cuts and trying to get to grips with their debt. Is that what you would prefer? Because there isn't a cosy third alternative that involves taking on more debt, retaining investor confidence in the bond markets and avoiding junk status.

[deeen]

pingu393 said:

martin84 said:

If the economy is at the stage where Ministers need to encourage people to panic buy fuel at the end of a quarter purely to delay the recession becoming official then arent we as good as in recession and shouldn't we be doing something about it?

One could argue that the way out of recession is to stop saving and start spending.

Spending what? From where?

[Digga]

deeen said:

pingu393 said:

martin84 said:

If the economy is at the stage where Ministers need to encourage people to panic buy fuel at the end of a quarter purely to delay the recession becoming official then arent we as good as in recession and shouldn't we be doing something about it?

One could argue that the way out of recession is to stop saving and start spending.

Spending what? From where?

The war chest so prudently put aside during the boom by Labour of course.

We need indiscriminate spending like we need an extra ahole. What should be spent by government is on investments in industry and infrastrucure to assist future growth of GDP (not only current) and what should be spent by consumers is what they can prudently afford. Nothing else, not a bean.

[Miguel Alvarez]

pingu393 said:

martin84 said:

If the economy is at the stage where Ministers need to encourage people to panic buy fuel at the end of a quarter purely to delay the recession becoming official then arent we as good as in recession and shouldn't we be doing something about it?

One could argue that the way out of recession is to stop saving and start spending.

This whole situation did get me thinking great timing for year end but I'll reserve judgement. As for the was it the right thing to do. I'd say if they did engineer it then yes it was a shrewd move. In the scheme of things people have spent what £50?? £100?? on stuff they would have bought a week or two later as opposed to previously spending credit money on big ticket goods that they probably don't need (Big generalisations).

I've read your question in a devil's advocate way so have responded accordingly.

[Oakey]

Tonights news at ten;

"Has panic at the pumps helped us avoid recession?"

OP, could you think of six numbers between 1 and 49 please!

[frosted]

Oakey said:

Tonights news at ten;

"Has panic at the pumps helped us avoid recession?"

OP, could you think of six numbers between 1 and 49 please!

Not really a guess though was it ? It was perfect number fiddling . Good thing I wasn't queing , I would have been proper pissed off