European Union Attacks Red Diesel For Boaters.

[mayalld]

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism but some people seem to enjoy giving unconstructive critism. Did any critics here produce an alternative 'better worded' petition in the end? If so, where is it? I don't mind signing that to...

 

OK, that is a fair question, to which I will make two responses, neither of which actually answer the question!

 

1) This is NOT an issue that affects huge numbers of people. No matter how well worded the petition is, there simply aren't going to be enough people who sign it hit the target. All that a petition will do is confirm to government that this isn't an issue that matters. Remember the quote "Better remain silent and have everybody think you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt". On issues like this, what is needed is arguing the point, making a sound case to government as to why they should do what we want, rather than trying to prove mass support. Mass support is what you use as a last resort to get governments to do things that you can't get them to do by reasoned argument.

2) The rules on e-petitions are that there can be only one petition on a given subject. As such, the person who created this petition has not only created a petition that many people find it impossible to support, but has removed any chance of a better worded petition being submitted

[bassplayer]

Do you think that this tax is aimed at getting rid of old diesels?

Bob

I was a bit confused by this post to. It seemed to imply red diesel was more polluting than non-dyed diesel. I can't see many of us who actually benefit from using red diesel arguing against it. Unless maybe those where money isn't an issue

[GUMPY]

We used to moor alongside a high ranking police officer and his opinion was that it would be nigh on impossible to police or monitor the use or abuse of red diesel. Can you imagine spot checks along the canal for potential 'duty evasion'?

 

As I've stated previously, there are far bigger fishes to catch when it comes to tax evasion and the yields justify the actions, whereas...............

Its really simple to police, a few high profile targeted raids on marinas checking the fuel in the filters with large fines for those transgressing and that's it 99% will comply.

That is after all what the French did a few years ago stopped the use of red in its tracks.

 

As for traces of red in tanks HMRC can tell by the % of the chemical marker when red was last used.

[bassplayer]

 

OK, that is a fair question, to which I will make two responses, neither of which actually answer the question!

 

1) This is NOT an issue that affects huge numbers of people. No matter how well worded the petition is, there simply aren't going to be enough people who sign it hit the target. All that a petition will do is confirm to government that this isn't an issue that matters. Remember the quote "Better remain silent and have everybody think you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt". On issues like this, what is needed is arguing the point, making a sound case to government as to why they should do what we want, rather than trying to prove mass support. Mass support is what you use as a last resort to get governments to do things that you can't get them to do by reasoned argument.

2) The rules on e-petitions are that there can be only one petition on a given subject. As such, the person who created this petition has not only created a petition that many people find it impossible to support, but has removed any chance of a better worded petition being submitted

So what do you suggest we do?

[Doorman]

Mass support is what you use as a last resort to get governments to do things that you can't get them to do by reasoned argument.

 

Hmmm....

 

I don't think that Guy Fawkes supported that rationale!

[Jerra]

Hmmm....

 

I don't think that Guy Fawkes supported that rationale!

Yes and look where it got him!

[mayalld]

So what do you suggest we do?

 

Forget about the petition, on the grounds that HMG already know how many people are affected by this, and all the petition proves to them is how many of them aren't bothering to think about it.

 

We should be giving HMG sound information as to why this change isn't a good idea for them (as opposed to why it isn't a good idea for us)

[Doorman]

Yes and look where it got him!

Yes, but by being submissive to countless governments thereafter, look where it got us!

Edited August 13, 2013 by Doorman

[mayalld]

Yes, but by being submissive to countless governments thereafter, look where it got us!

 

Do you have an example of a country where they have been less submissive, with a better outcome?

[Doorman]

We should be giving HMG sound information as to why this change isn't a good idea for them (as opposed to why it isn't a good idea for us)

Sound and established sales logic there might I add. The government, even ignoring their rhetoric, are only interested in what they can gain from anything.

Do you have an example of a country where they have been less submissive, with a better outcome?

The Fatherland (Germany)

[mayalld]

Sound and established sales logic there might I add. The government, even ignoring their rhetoric, are only interested in what they can gain from anything.

 

 

Exactly!

 

Broadly speaking, governments are motivated by a desire to remain as governments (or to credit them with a little bit more of a long term view, to remain as governments for a period of time, and to return to being government after as short an interval as possible).

 

Those objectives are, first and foremost, attained by not pissing off too many people..

 

Governments piss people off either by doing something very specific that lots of people don't want them to do, or by doing a whole load of things that collectively make people's lives worse.

 

The trade off for governments is that very often, the specifics that will piss people off run contrary to the run of things that will make things worse.

 

As such, whether a government will do something is a balancing act between how many people will be upset by the immediate action, and how many people will be upset by the consequences of that action.

 

In this case, clearly a small number of boaters would be unhappy with the loss of red diesel, but not really enough to make a difference.

 

There would be economic outcomes, in terms of businesses folding, but not huge. Environmental impacts, but not huge.

 

The question is "what arguments will work";

 

I would suggest;

 

1) You will make a few people annoyed, and less likely to vote for you.

2) You will not make anybody like you more (there is no PR capital in going along with this)

3) You will drive some small businesses to the wall (negative PR)

4) There will be an environmental incident that will be attributed to the change (negative PR)

5) There may be a reduction in boating activity, and in CRT income. CRT could fail (negative PR)

6) Doing this, with all its PR risks isn't going to bring in any revenue.

7) By not doing it, you are standing up to the EU (which plays well to your voters), even if you eventually give in.

 

The government will fight this, because it makes sense for them to do so. However, the purpose of that fight is so that any negative effects can be blamed on the EU. We need to convince them that even without the EU bashing angle, this makes sense.

[Tuscan]

It's an easy fight for the government to have if the will is there because I suspect outside the beauracrats it's an easy one for the EU to concede and to give he UK the PR victory if he government lose then it will be quietly forgotten as relatively few are effected. Suggest letter to MPandEuro MP will have a greater chance than petition.

[Hawkmoth]

I was a bit confused by this post to. It seemed to imply red diesel was more polluting than non-dyed diesel. I can't see many of us who actually benefit from using red diesel arguing against it. Unless maybe those where money isn't an issue

I was replying/asking to billywhite, not asking a question generally.

Bob

eta clarification

 

Exactly!

 

Broadly speaking, governments are motivated by a desire to remain as governments (or to credit them with a little bit more of a long term view, to remain as governments for a period of time, and to return to being government after as short an interval as possible).

 

Those objectives are, first and foremost, attained by not pissing off too many people..

 

Governments piss people off either by doing something very specific that lots of people don't want them to do, or by doing a whole load of things that collectively make people's lives worse.

 

The trade off for governments is that very often, the specifics that will piss people off run contrary to the run of things that will make things worse.

 

As such, whether a government will do something is a balancing act between how many people will be upset by the immediate action, and how many people will be upset by the consequences of that action.

 

In this case, clearly a small number of boaters would be unhappy with the loss of red diesel, but not really enough to make a difference.

 

There would be economic outcomes, in terms of businesses folding, but not huge. Environmental impacts, but not huge.

 

The question is "what arguments will work";

 

I would suggest;

 

1) You will make a few people annoyed, and less likely to vote for you.

2) You will not make anybody like you more (there is no PR capital in going along with this)

3) You will drive some small businesses to the wall (negative PR)

4) There will be an environmental incident that will be attributed to the change (negative PR)

5) There may be a reduction in boating activity, and in CRT income. CRT could fail (negative PR)

6) Doing this, with all its PR risks isn't going to bring in any revenue.

7) By not doing it, you are standing up to the EU (which plays well to your voters), even if you eventually give in.

 

The government will fight this, because it makes sense for them to do so. However, the purpose of that fight is so that any negative effects can be blamed on the EU. We need to convince them that even without the EU bashing angle, this makes sense.

Have a greenie!

Bob

Edited August 13, 2013 by lyraboat

[Doorman]

Exactly!

 

Broadly speaking, governments are motivated by a desire to remain as governments (or to credit them with a little bit more of a long term view, to remain as governments for a period of time, and to return to being government after as short an interval as possible).

 

Those objectives are, first and foremost, attained by not pissing off too many people..

 

Governments piss people off either by doing something very specific that lots of people don't want them to do, or by doing a whole load of things that collectively make people's lives worse.

 

The trade off for governments is that very often, the specifics that will piss people off run contrary to the run of things that will make things worse.

 

As such, whether a government will do something is a balancing act between how many people will be upset by the immediate action, and how many people will be upset by the consequences of that action.

 

In this case, clearly a small number of boaters would be unhappy with the loss of red diesel, but not really enough to make a difference.

 

There would be economic outcomes, in terms of businesses folding, but not huge. Environmental impacts, but not huge.

 

The question is "what arguments will work";

 

I would suggest;

 

1) You will make a few people annoyed, and less likely to vote for you.

2) You will not make anybody like you more (there is no PR capital in going along with this)

3) You will drive some small businesses to the wall (negative PR)

4) There will be an environmental incident that will be attributed to the change (negative PR)

5) There may be a reduction in boating activity, and in CRT income. CRT could fail (negative PR)

6) Doing this, with all its PR risks isn't going to bring in any revenue.

7) By not doing it, you are standing up to the EU (which plays well to your voters), even if you eventually give in.

 

The government will fight this, because it makes sense for them to do so. However, the purpose of that fight is so that any negative effects can be blamed on the EU. We need to convince them that even without the EU bashing angle, this makes sense.

And in summing up,

 

Governments can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but thankfully, not all of the people all of the time!

 

Never trust a politician, especially Phoney Blair!

[fudd]

If the petition was amended and was an acceptable document to sign then there still wouldn't be enough people to make any difference. Unless!! We get the all the people who are going to be affected by the hike in tax. Those being the majority of tax payers in this country. 'Bout 20,000,000 signatures. Would that be enough?

[onionbargee]

i like the notion that the EU would listen to a little petetion !

 

( in that order)

[mayalld]

And in summing up,

 

Governments can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but thankfully, not all of the people all of the time!

 

Never trust a politician, especially Phoney Blair!

 

No, in summing up, governments of all shades have a theory about what will work in the long term.

 

Unfortunately, every such theory requires longer than a parliament to achieve its aims, and in the shorter term will piss too many people off.

 

As such every government will compromise its ideals, in order to progress towards its utopia over a longer term whilst keeping the masses on side.

 

It isn't about fooling people, because for the most part people aren't fooled. For the most part we understand that government stategy for the national good is a long term issue, but still we vote for our own short term advantage.

 

You can criticise politicians, but somebody votes for them...

[Doorman]

It isn't about fooling people, because for the most part people aren't fooled.

 

You can criticise politicians, but somebody votes for them...

Hands up anyone, who wasn't fooled by the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

 

Yes, thankfully we can in this country anyway, criticise our politicians. Can you imagine what they would get up to if we had no form of redress towards their self serving ways?

[bassplayer]

 

Sorry, struggling with formatting, but here goes...

 

"(...all the petition proves to them is how many of them aren't bothering to think about it. )"

 

Please explain how this could be the case? I get the impression you haven't signed it but I know you've thought about it...

 

"We should be giving HMG sound information as to why this change isn't a good idea for them"

 

Silly me, I thought HMG was there to serve us all. I'm sure writing a little letter to my MEP will have more effect then..."

 

I recon the main reasons why people don't sign it are :

 

1) Can't be arsed (then give convoluted reasons for not doing so)

 

2) Feel aggrieved someone else thought of it first (then give convoluted reasons for not doing so)

 

3) Don't mind diesel becoming more expensive because they don't use it or money in no issue.

Edited August 13, 2013 by bassplayer

[GUMPY]

You missed out 4

4) Wont sign because they can't see why taxpayers should subsidise rich boaters burning gallons of fuel for pleasure.

 

This tax also affects coastal yots and power boats the latter of which are very fuel hungry.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Loddon

[bassplayer]

You missed out 4

4) Wont sign because they can't see why taxpayers should subsidise rich boaters burning gallons of fuel for pleasure.

 

This tax also affects coastal yots and power boats the latter of which are very fuel hungry.

How do power boaters get away with declaring the domestic fuel split? Anyway, how much of the tax gained from any fuel (and alcohol, fags etc) do you think goes back to those who really need it? Maybe the Sunseeker owners will come to our rescue then...they must have contacts if they are not themselves bankers!

[Ships Cat]

The yachting community (I have several friends who are members) is very unhappy about the recent revelations and have their own offensive, I believe. And yes, since it's an elitist hobby (Don't shoot me - any hobby that is regularly compared to throwing £50 notes down a large hole by it's own members can't be anything else), they carry some swing in political circles.

 

BTW, Doorman, my hand's up, and I ended up out there in 91! Can't say how I knew but let's just say that there were people in Whitehall who knew too. Blair the sycophant - I can only hope that when Rockhopper find oil off The Falkland Islands that the Septics actually pay us back by lending us an aircraft carrier or two to hold the Argies off, instead of deciding to back the Argentinian invasion.

 

Can you NB across to The Isle of Man? Bet they won't have to uptax red diesel.

[GUMPY]

How do power boaters get away with declaring the domestic fuel split? Anyway, how much of the tax gained from any fuel (and alcohol, fags etc) do you think goes back to those who really need it? Maybe the Sunseeker owners will come to our rescue then...they must have contacts if they are not themselves bankers!

I assume 60/40 however I did hear of one being done by HMRC last year after doing 200 miles along the coast on a sunny day with no heating on having declared 60/40. Whether that is true or not who can say

[Doorman]

 

BTW, Doorman, my hand's up, and I ended up out there in 91! Can't say how I knew but let's just say that there were people in Whitehall who knew too. Blair the sycophant.

Ah, 1991. The true year when Britain and America began the war on Iraq in an attempt to control their vast oil reserves. Dr David Kelly fell foul to this charade with his life at cost, together with over a hundred thousand Iraqis and yet Blair and Bush still remain free men!

 

How did we let these politicians fool us so easily?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Doorman

[onionbargee]

Financial times March 17, 2013 4:03 pm

 

When Iraq held its first postwar oil licensing round in June 2009, groups like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP flocked to Baghdad for what was one of the most eagerly anticipated events in the oil industry calendar.

At the fourth round last May, none of them bid

But ultimately, the winner of the past decade has been the Iraqi state. The IEA predicts Baghdad stands to gain almost $5tn in revenues from oil exports to 2035 – offering a “transformative opportunity” for the economy.