So that panic buying looks really silly now...

[martin84]

No mention on PH that I can see of the fact talks appear to be going well and a strike looks likely to be averted. If they really wanted to go on strike they'd have done it by now and a deal is to be put to members next week. If this is indeed the case it makes the Government look even more stupid than they did a couple of weeks ago. Ministers are sticking to their back-up plans which is fair enough I suppose until the strike is formally called off but it does show how stupid they were to spread panic a couple of weeks ago.

Only in Britain.

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 14th April 16:13

[martin84]

andy-xr said:

But sooner than April makes a difference to the quarterly results, we've already had one quarter of negative growth, 2 would be technical recession. Cynic, me...? No....

It makes very little difference. The extra £80million or how ever much it was may sound like a lot but when you consider the NHS costs £350million a day thats small potatoes in terms of quarterly public finances.

If we're at the point where that extra fuel (and fuel tax) money actually can affect quarterly results to the stage of recession/not recession then essentially we're in recession, whether it has an official stamp on it or not. If it's that bad then all they've done is delay the bad news.

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 14th April 16:42

[martin84]

CaptainSlow said:

and the prices haven't come back down to pre-panic levels yet.

Yes I've noticed that! Petrol stations must think we're all total idiots. I do expect a good 6-7p a litre drop over the coming weeks.

I noticed today my local Morrisons puts their petrol up 2p as Texaco bring their diesel down 2p.

These stations aren't in collusion at all are they?!

If they were supermarkets or sold milk we'd do them for price fixing.

[martin84]

david.h said:

I think the "top up" advice was a smart move by the Gov't. Everyone went & topped up, there had to be 7 days notice of a strike, so good time to get the petrol stations refilled & if motorists just bought as normal (but had full tanks, not half full) then where is the problem? Fuel transferred from petrol station tanks to vehicle tanks....Simples! Neat bit of leverage to reduce the blackmail by the tanker drivers!

It was a horrifically bad move by a horribly incompetent waste of space of a Government.

1) People didn't 'top up' they panic bought as much fuel as they could afford. Any idiot knows the moment you tell people to top up because there's a strike people will panic buy. I know this, you know this. So why does David Cameron not know this?

2) There were no strike dates set, so no need to promote panic

3) The retailers had no idea the Government were going to be so brainless so they had no opportunity to increase supplies for the droves of panic buyers, so stations ran dry and had only their standard deliveries to rely on despite the Government's advice increasing sales by 180%. The Government failing to notify retailers of their brainless advice was a horrific mistake.

4) Fuel transferred from stations to fuel tanks? When any possible strike was a fortnight away? So everyone will use up their panic bought fuel just in time for the strike. They won't be able to re-fuel because every station is empty due to the Government not telling retailers they're encouraging panic buying and - even if a strike was confirmed which it never was at any stage - we'd have had two solid weeks of people causing massive ques on roads as they wait 4 hours to put in the £6 they used driving home from the station last time. Government induced gridlock.

5) Once again, there was never a strike confirmed. No dates were set and no strike was confirmed. Third time i've mentioned it but its the most glaring part of the whole fiasco.

6) How is 7 days long enough to get stations refilled? Theres still plenty of stations who have failed to get re-filled which is a clear sign that 7 days would never be enough. It might've been if the Government had notified retailers of their intention to issue panic buying advice.

The Government later retracted their awful advice as they recognised it was terrible advice. They go 'we were trying to help people stockpile for the strike' when - for the fourth time - THERE WAS NO fkING STRIKE!!!!!!!!

The petrol retailers association blames the Government and so does every sensible person. Typical case of Tories wanting to attack Unions. Out of their spite for Unions, the Conservative's ensure we get the full effects of a strike despite no strike taking place.

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 14th April 18:47

[martin84]

No sane person could say the Government's advice was a smart move. The Government's advice brought the entire country to a stand-still and drained every filling station in the land. Some will say the buying started before Maude-gate but the last thing the problem needed was senior cabinet ministers encouraging panic buying.

Telling people to 'keep topped up' is contradictory to 'fill up if you've got half a tank.'

This resulted in people in ques as long as 45 cars (which I saw first hand) waiting to buy about £6 of fuel. I'm not making it up thats actually really what happened. People bought fuel, drove home and thought 'Cameron told me to top up, I should replace what I used getting back from the station!!!!' Duhhhhhhh!!! I mean seriously, considering no strike was ever called and any possible strike could've been weeks or even months away, were we supposed to stay in this que blocking roundabouts and junctions forever? The strike (if there was one) might not have been called until November for all we knew, were we supposed to que endlessly for the rest of the year?

Bottom line is its pathetic advice when you don't even know the dates of any strike. If the strike was confirmed to start the following monday then I'd view this differently, but the Government acted as though a strike was about to start which was never the case.

The Government's advice led to gridlocked roads, turned roundabouts into car parks, caused havoc for the petrol retail trade which are still struggling to re-stock and the Cameron-induced ques were frankly dangerous to traffic.

Don't let blind faith and love in the Conservative Party taint your view on their handling of this issue. If a Labour Government took the exact same tact this website would be murdering them. You'd say it was Labour and the Unions in cahoots to encourage panic buying to show the country how much they depend on their tanker driver friends. Theories of quarterly tax figure scams would've been replaced with 'Miliband trying to get tanker drivers over-time!'

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

This is such a minor even trivial matter compared with the fk ups of the last government.



Oh and what position do you hold in the Labour party?

Oh thats how low PH is now is it? Sunken to new depths. A minor fk-up is deemed 'good sound advice' just because the previous lot were worse. Get off your Tory high horse and admit Cameron and his friends brought the entire nation to a stand still. We'd have been in a que blocking roundabouts for months on end to top up with £6 of fuel endlessly if they hadn't retracted their advice.

Everybody has already agreed the Government made a massive fkup here. Its about time PH realised it as well despite its pro-Tory agenda.

The Conservatives are unique on PH in the way they only win. They never do any wrong. If Labour had done this you'd say it was a shambles, but the Tories are allowed to do it. On PH everything the Tories do gets spun to be right. It needs to end.

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 14th April 22:37

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

Yes it's a minor fk up at most, if anything it was the sky reporter (watch the link I provided) trying to make trouble (maybe murdoch wants revenge)

People bought fuel that is all ALL.

the last governemt created £1.4 trillion of debt that is causing people to lose a lot more than a jerry can of fuel.

The last government have saddled our children and their children and probably thier grand children with a mountain of debt.

This goverment got people to fill thier tanks.

It was a minor fk up at most.

What about tuition fees, riots, Andy Coulsen, Liam Fox, the savage destruction of the NHS, cash for PM access, granny tax, fuel tax, pasty tax, brainless reform of welfare which wont save any money, rising unemployment, unwarranted attack on pensioners in the same day as a tax cut for the rich - except those who want to give to Charity - and the general fact this Government lacks the competence to improve the economic situation? Osborne is a complete moron and this lot after two years have not made a single dent in anything. And their PR management is quite abysmal, if they're paying anybody for this strategy that persons salary should be the first one off the taxpayers bill.

A minor fk up is still a fk up, I wanted to keep this thread on the fuel subject but you're the one who's comparing mishandling of a NON EXISTANT fuel strike with racking up a national debt. In the context of the fuel issue the Governments role in the chaos is major, you cannot just hide behind Labour every time the Tories make a fk up just so as you dont have to criticise your beloved party. This Government's had its share of fk ups as well you know, thats all I'm saying.

Are you saying any mistake the Tories make is perfectly fine so long as they're not as bad as the last lot? I dont mind you smashing Labour so long as you treat the Conservative's the same when they make a mistake. According to PH the Tories only win, they never seem to lose. Interesting considering they never won the election

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 14th April 22:53

[martin84]

deeen said:

It was a brilliant negotiating move, of course thay can't admit that in public.

How was bringing the entire nation to a stand-still, draining fuel supplies, causing dangerous traffic conditions, chaos to the petrol industry (who weren't expecting the Government to encourage panic buying) and giving tanker drivers extra hours, pay and leveredge a 'brilliant negotiating move' exactly? All they did was play into Unite's hands, the Government can cause the public enough trouble without the tanker drivers going on strike, imagine the chaos if they actually did strike?!

The fact is PH is the only community which will back the Tories on this. Every newspaper poll shows the public blame the Government for the crisis, the petrol stations blame the Government for the crisis, the petrol retailers association blames the Government for the crisis. You cant blame the Unions because they never went on strike. Deliveries continued as normal.

[martin84]

surveyor said:

Agreed unions tactical position blown out of the water by pre emptive action.

We all winged then, but what would we have done if a strike had happened a week later and they had said nothing.

Pre-emptive action of giving the Unions drivers extra pay and hours? Pre-emptive action of causing the public all sorts of problems just because Tory boys fancy a fight with Labour?

Weak argument because you dont seem to realise any strike was SEVEN DAYS AWAY even if it happened!!!! No strike dates were ever confirmed!!! Can you people get this into your thick brains please! There was no chance of a strike suddenly happening a week later without getting clear notice from the Unions first.

If strike dates were confirmed - which they never were - that is when the Government should be in contact with the petrol industry to increase supplies and THEN issue a warning. Don't go creating the panic before a strike is even confirmed especially when petrol retailers haven't had forewarning to expect panic buying. All that happened was a Union did a ballot, they never confirmed any strike, they never confirmed any dates, nothing happened and there was no chance or risk of fuel deliveries stopping immediately.

Saying 'what if the strike happened next week...' is not valid because the fact that was always a non existant scenario.

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 14th April 23:04

[martin84]

paulrussell said:

What the government said was a good idea. It was the media that got the public to panic. The government never said for people to fill jerry cans when a strike hadn't been anounced. Francis Maude said "If and when there is a strike, a bit of extra fuel in a jerry can in the garage is a sensible precaution to take".

It may have been a good idea if the Union had confirmed a strike and announced strike dates. Instead the Government's advice was premature and brought us the effects of a strike without a strike taking place. Blaming the media is a tired response. If the Government didn't say such stupid things they wouldn't be able to report it. When Maude said 'if and when there is a strike....' the public heard 'there is a strike.' Not only are there laws against what Maude suggested making it an unsafe and possibly illegal precaution rather than sensible, Cameron's advice was a typical Cameron oxymoron of 'top up but dont que.'

Britain's 33 million motorists don't all top up on the same day, which is handy because petrol stations don't have enough fuel at any one time for that. When Cameron said 'top up' any sane person knew that would result in ques. You can't tell everybody to top up without there being a que. Everybody hears that and goes 'everybody else will buy fuel, I must rush out and buy fuel!!!' so then everybody buys fuel to the point where panic buying is the only sensible option. If you don't panic buy the fuel you need then somebody else will panic buy it when they probably don't need it.

The moment the media put the words Union-Petrol-Vote-Strike-Prime-Minister-Says-Dont-Panic-Minister-Jerry-Can out there, people panic buy. I knew the Governments advice would lead to panic buying because people are stupid. People are moronic. The Nanny State is an excellent idea because people are quite dumb. The fact is I know this and so do you, so why didn't David Cameron know it? Whether the advice was well intended and just badly presented is irrelevent, the fact is that advice was always going to lead to chaos. My pet rabbit could've told you that before Cameron opened his trap.

I just want to know how PH would've reacted if a Labour Government had taken the exact same tact. Would you have accused them of incompetence and trying to create problems? I still think tax-quarterly etc theories wouldve been replaced with theories of Miliband and Unite in cahoots to grind nation to stand-still etc.

The Tories can get away with Labour-esque incompetence, but Labour can't, according to PH anyway.

[martin84]

PumpkinSteve said:

They filled up jam jars, milk bottles, bottle caps which they wouldn't have had otherwise, so there must have been more petrol sold during the panic than if they'd just bought as usual.

Thats the point. If people bought as usual there wouldn't have been a problem. The best way to get people to buy as usual was to not mention anything about any strike, just leave things to go on as normal. The Government however actively encouraged people to buy more fuel than they normally do. They encouraged stockpiling.

They never notified retailers that they'd encourage this behaviour, where did the Government think all the extra fuel would come from? The Government dont even seem to realise how a petrol station works. God help us.

[martin84]

aryastark said:

The countries full of retarded lemmings, many of whom are on this forum. I dread to think what will happen when/if something really kicks off.

I'm struggling to remember that clearly but I'm pretty sure there wasn't panic buying in 2000 long before any protest was even arranged.

[martin84]

Mr Sparkle said:

If it hadn't been on the news I wouldn't have noticed all the panic buying, I filled up as normal on a Saturday and the Tesco's petrol station at Lakside had no queues. Don't think it was a big deal.

Maybe if Cameron and Maude hadn't encouraged panic buying and petrol conservation in sheds/garages etc there might've been less panic buying? All they did was make the public believe the chances of a strike were higher than they really were.

Are you suggesting the news shouldn't report news? Should the news be blocked from reporting facts and events which may be inconvenient to you? Theres a chap in North Korea who's quite keen on such things.

[martin84]

Mr Sparkle said:

I'm suggesting it wan't that big of a deal. The fact I saw on the roads didn't tie up with the doom that you seem to have been witness to. As for your hatred of the Conservative in every post, they are nothing like as bad as the previous half wits and the cancer that voted them in.

I don't have a hatrid for the Conservative Party. I have a hatrid for the fact PH flip flops depending on whether the Tories or Labour are responsible for something. If a Labour ex-Mayor is suspected of tax dodging it gets a 10 page thread of vile rants, if a Tory Prime Minister drains the nation dry of petrol its supposedly fine because he's a Tory and Labour would've been worse you know

I dislike the fact the Tories only seem to win on here, they never lose. Things get skewed and spun to ensure the Tories look best. It smacks of blind faith and tribalism to me. Thats what I dont like. We all know if Labour had handled this fuel issue in the same way theres no way PH'ers would say it was sound management.

Is not being as bad as Labour worthy of any praise?

[martin84]

Mr Sparkle said:

Of course you are right here, but it still doesn't change my observation that I wasn't inconvenienced by long queues.

Some areas were worse than others. I decided to stick to my guns and buy my usual amount on my usual day, hoping the drained stations would've just been re-fuelled by the time I needed them and I was right so I personally didn't have a problem but I did drive past a BP with about 40 cars waiting which was a bizarre sight.

[martin84]

Sir Bagalot said:

I was really surprised by the amount of places that sneaked 3-5p per litre on.

Really? Why? These are petrol stations we're talking about

They had a bit on the news earlier about the price hike. Somebody from the Petrol Retailers Association - or whatever they're called these days - said they don't understand why their cost price is rising as demand by and large is decreasing and they've asked the OFT to look into it.

My local station was 137.9 a couple of weeks ago. Within 2 days it went to 143.9 and hasn't moved since.

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

How many of those decisions were made due to Labour ruining the economy?

None

38911 said:

but as others have said, nowhere near the level of utter incompetence and stupidity of the last cretinous government.

Labour fked this country up well and truly. So lets keep it in context eh?

The country was magnificent and faultless in 1996 was it? Give me strength. Morons. T

The only context I'm interested in is the context of the fuel shortage. I am sick and tired of PH ignoring EVERY Tory mistake and merely using it as an excuse to criticise the previous Government. Every single Tory fk up is brushed under the carpet or defended with 'Labour were worse' as though that makes the Tories right? Do we have to wait for another black wednesday before PH will finally criticise a Conservative administration? Is that how far it has to go? You people just embarass yourselves.

Its like asking both of them whats 4 + 4, they both get it wrong but the Tories saying 9 is fine because Labour got the question wrong as well. This website isn't biased at all

If you think 'its all Labour's fault' is going to work for the Tories at the next election you're all going to be very disappointed. The Tories need to actually do something positive rather than being marginally less thick than the last lot you know.

NoNeed said:

You forget to answer my question. What position do you hold in the labour party.

You forgot to answer mine. How would you have reacted if a Labour Government had taken this approach to this issue? Would PH have called it an excellent negotiating tactic and sound advice?

Funny how nobody has answered that

ETA: Do you think only Labour members would criticise Conservatives? 19 million voters did not vote Tory in 2010. Its not just the Labour party who dislike them.

Edited by martin84 on Sunday 15th April 16:20

[martin84]

Frik said:

Indeed, but what do you expect? Objectivity isn't most people's finest skill, particularly PHers.

The advice given was a terrible idea IMO. Maude was trying to pull a Thatcher, which if you've got stockpiles of coal is a cunning plan. When you're getting the general public to do the stockpiling for you with something as potentially lethal as petrol, it's pretty idiotic. I've said it here before, but if you're going to give out official advice like this, you need to be bloody specific.

'If you've got stockpiles...' being the most critical part of that. The fact is we were encouraged to stockpile petrol when petrol stations didnt have enough for us to do that! We're three pages in now and nobody has acknowledged the Government sent out this advice without talking to the fuel retailers in advance. Petrol stations were left to rely purely on their standard deliveries as their Government drummed up 200% extra business for them which they couldn't meet.

[martin84]

Rich W said:

OH FFS Do you ACTUALLY understand the current economic situation. You do understand that when we have 1 Trillion of debt you have to make MASSIVE cutbacks everywhere you can. I don't like it anymore than you. But I do accept it has to happen. Unlike Labour I don't beleive there is a money tree

The Conservative's are not making massive cutbacks everywhere they can. They're making minor cutbacks which will see them unelectable in 2015. The public will not vote for slashing public spending, its a simple as that, especially when its including expensive destruction of the NHS. The Tories are actually increasing spending and putting a lot of money into politically expensive reform which is unlikely to even save money. The reality is theres no single economic theory or principle which can solve the issue. Any idiot can take the tact of cutting taxes, cutting spending, increasing spending etc. The trick is to find the right blend to generate growth and increase tax revenue in the country and usually that depends on leaning on a bit of all economic theories. How much of each is the 64 million dollar question and a question I dont believe Osborne is capable of answering. He is a weak Chancellor with no growth plan of any sort.

Rich W said:

We weren't in the dire financial straights your beloved Labour have managed to get the UK into now.

Right back up a second, its none of your business but you might want to know I have no connection to the Labour Party at all other than voting for them in 01 and 05, I have a long list of criticisms of the Labour Party as long as my criticisms of the Tories. If I was twice as old as I am I doubt I'd have voted for the likes of Kinnock or Foot when Labour were actually a genuine left wing party. I dont love any party, for the record. Secondly, the banks played a pretty big part in the collapse of the entire financial system, you cannot entirely blame the Government and indeed nearly 9 million people voted for the Party you credit with destroying the World in 2010. May I remind you this is a worldwide economic crisis, Gordon Brown didn't cause the sub prime mortage problems in the US, he didn't shut down Lehmann brothers, he didnt mismanage RBS to the point of needing Government bailouts. Its unfair to blame one man for a WORLDWIDE problem.

You may dislike the fact it was a worldwide recession, because that gave Labour a fighting chance because they could blame the economic issues of the UK on the rest of the World. You could say this partly prevented Cameron winning a majority.

Rich W said:

I wonder why Milliband didn't say the Fuel strikes were a bad thing though? Corruption? Self interest?

Maybe because no fuel strike ever happened? I know its a difficult message to get across, Francis Maude thought the strike had already started as well.

Rich W said:

and benefits for the workshy.

You mean the 3 million unemployed - partly due to the Government sacking them - who are now chasing jobs in a job market with too few to go round? Jobs get about 100 applications each these days, don't confuse 'workshy' with the unemployed. I know PH thinks everybody who receives a benefit is a feckless thug, including pensioners and the disabled and the Tories attitude towards such people has been quite disgraceful.

Rich W said:

The problem is the workshy wasters of this country. The benefit cheats and all the rest of the scum have been targetted by the Tories.

For the record, fradulent benefit payments amounted to less than 0.5% of Government expendature last year. The DWP loses a similar amount in administration errors and the Government is spending more than that on reforms to welfare which won't save any money even in the long run. Cameron believes welfare is this massive goldmine for the State to make money out of, he thinks the entire deficit can be solved by punching the unemployed and kicking the disabled out of wheelchairs which makes me sick to the stomach. You accuse Miliband of tailoring his approach to satisfy those who will vote for him, well the Tories know that unemployed people don't vote Conservative so they can attack them while losing little political capital. They won't attack Banks or anybody like that because Cameron went to school with these people and is in the pocket of the City and the Murdoch media.

'Workshy wasters' are not the problem, only morons who read the Daily Mail believe rubbish like that. PH believes 'workshy' and 'benefit cheats' are responsible for 110% of the entire economic mess which makes your earlier question of whether I understand the economic situation or not look incredibly stupid. You are a different sort of moronic if you think that is the main problem we face today.

Rich W said:

Oh, and I'm so glad you brought up "Pasty Tax". Pasty Tax was designed to close a VAT loophole that penalised your local, 1 family run Chippy but didn't penalise Greggs the Bakers selling a hot Cornish

I know all of this already. Stop wasting your bandwidth. They could've exempted the local chippy from paying VAT if their only interest was to put people on a level playing field But predictably they took the option which raises them more money. To be 'fair' the Conservative policy is to penalise everybody. Always has been, always will, apart from if you're a top rate tax payer, he wants to help you. Unless you're a rich person who wants to give money to charity to help those the Cameron Ministry is leaving behind of course, then you're a wealthy tax dodger!

For the record I have no problem with an expansion of VAT laws, it'll push a pasty up 20p which is hardly a big deal but the fact is the Tories are awful at playing effective politics. They raise money from working class pasty eaters and pensioners while giving a tax cut to the richest in the same day, surely they knew that was never going to play well?

Rich W said:

I loved when Ed Milliband (who is virtually unelectable IMO) stood in Greggs saying how it would hurt a retailer like them. FYI Greggs is listed on the stock market and had a revenue in 2011 of £701M! Hardly the working class he wanted to defend

So now you're saying Labour are on the side of big business? Make up your mind. I was disappointed when Ed won the leadership election, Trade Union votes are like the away goals rule in the Labour Party and in my view they elected the wrong Miliband. Yes the photo-op was cynical but at least the Labour Party have half a clue of how to play effective media politics because whether you like it or not Labour are good at it and it has worked for them before in terms of gaining votes. No matter how much the facts suggest Labour's support for 'Mondeo man' is bogus, the Tories are still viewed as purely on the side of the rich so they're not seen as a viable alternative.

I am fully aware of how much Greggs is worth thank you very much. If you think I'm stupid enough to believe a multi-million pound blue chip company will be destroyed by paying VAT like everybody else you clearly don't know much about me at all.

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

Your 3 million unemployed figure is only the tip of the iceberg, New Labour went to some quite large lengths at great expense to this nation to hide the other 5 million, oh and pay them nicely.
In 2010 so nothing to do with the coalition there were 8 million
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7257667/E...

Figures are massaged extremely well and they still are so the Coalition has done nothing about it in 2 years. Its in their interests for it to look better than it is of course. I used to work for the Job Centre so I already know all of this as well. I'm not sure what you're getting at. The quarterly jobless figures are a joke and barely tell any of the real story, I know what they're going to say before they come out.