Jeremy Hunt has been accused of “just tinkering around the edges” of the changes required to transform the UK’s transport system and benefit those on the lowest incomes, a leading think thank has said, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer opted to keep fuel duty frozen for the 14th year in a row.
As part of the final scheduled Budget before the next general election, Hunt claimed that he would save the average British household £50 a year by opting to once again extend the 5p cut in fuel duty introduced in 2022 as prices soared following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Announcing the measure, expected to cost the Treasury around £5bn, the Chancellor said: “The Labour mayor of London wants to punish motorists even more with his ULEZ plans but lots of families and sole traders depend on their car. If I did nothing fuel duty would increase by 13 per cent each month.”
> Rishi Sunak is “on the side” of drivers – What happened to Britain’s “golden age for cycling”?
However, the move has been criticised as a “missed opportunity” by both active travel campaigners and the Institute for Public Policy Research, who have claimed that this latest fuel duty freeze “disproportionately benefits the wealthiest drivers”, while locking those on lower incomes, and those who don’t drive, “into unaffordable transport costs”.
“The Chancellor spoke of helping families in the long term but decided to lock them into unaffordable transport costs,” Maya Singer-Hobbs, a senior research fellow in energy, climate, housing, and infrastructure at the London-based Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), said in a statement today.
“Maintaining the fuel duty freeze for another year at a cost of £5bn does nothing to help those who do not drive, who are likely to be on the lowest income, and disproportionately benefits the wealthiest drivers.
“If the average driver is £50 better off at the end of this year as a result of this, the lowest earning motorists see a fraction of this benefit – just £22 according to the Social Market Foundation.”
As noted by the IPPR, new research by the Social Market Foundation (SMF) think tank has revealed that – despite Hunt’s headline of £50 savings for the average household – those who earn the least will save just £22 from this latest fuel duty freeze, while the wealthiest in society will save £60.
“Our own analysis found that drivers on the lowest income are spending more than a fifth of their income on running a car,” Singer-Hobbs continued.
“The fuel duty freeze is just tinkering around the edges of the costs our transport system places on households. It also drives up carbon dioxide emissions and makes meeting our climate commitments even harder.
“This budget has been a missed opportunity to invest in affordable alternatives to driving, despite the huge appetite across the country for investment in public transport and desire from many to travel more actively.”
Despite the widespread desire to travel actively noted by the IPPR, today’s Budget contained no mention of either cycling or walking, a stark omission noted by Cycling UK, and one that’s particularly glaring coming in the wake of last year’s report by the government’s official spending watchdog, which claimed that the Department for Transport is highly unlikely to achieve any of its four key active travel goals by 2025.
“The Government is repeating its long-running mistake of under-funding and short-term thinking on sustainable transport,” Cycling UK’s director of external affairs, Sarah McMonagle said today.
“The National Audit Office (NAO) told the Government last year it wasn’t investing enough to meet its own 2025 targets for walking and cycling, even before it slashed dedicated funding for active travel by two thirds last March.
“This financial black hole, coupled with the stop-start nature of funding, is preventing local authorities from investing in cycling and walking schemes that we know create green jobs, boost economic growth and make our streets safer, in addition to the many health, wellbeing and environmental benefits.
“Instead, the Chancellor has made another short-term focused decision to extend the fuel duty freeze, a poor value for money policy that has been shown to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest in society.
“It’s time the Government took a long-term, integrated approach to transport policy, investing to give people more transport choice, including affordable, safe, and reliable alternatives to driving.”
70 thoughts on “No cycling! (or walking) but Jeremy Hunt’s budget delivers £5 billion giveaway to drivers”
As long as you stick to real
As long as you stick to real wholesome food rather than junk / cake then your “fuel” is technically tax free whilst cycling 🙂
Wouldn’t say no to unfreezing fuel duty though and more investment in cycling infrastructure! Hell at this stage I’d even take repairing the roads as a win as they’re worse than cobbled streets in many places!
How dare you suggest that
How dare you suggest that cyclists shouldn’t eat cake!!!
Shermo wrote:
It’s not tax free if you get it from a cafe, regardless of junk status.
Shermo wrote:
Cake from a bakery or supermarket is tax free as well, just sayin’.
Change the tax rate ….
Change the tax rate …. First 40litres at lower rate … 40 to 50 litres at an intermediate rate and above 50 lites at double the lower rate.
Wouldn’t be hard to implement – after all, point of sale kit already copes with multiple tax on shopping.
People would likely partially
People would likely partially fill their tanks to avoid the tax. What about applying the duty according to the vehicle? Either manually or automatically (with e,g. ANPR) the reg is entered when you fill up and a using a national database the appropriate duty according to emissions, weight, consumption or whatever criteria is automatically applied.
That’s pretty much built in
That’s pretty much built in already. Vehicles with higher consumption need more fuel…
Pub bike wrote:
Hitting the poorest the hardest again!
Stephankernow wrote:
The poorest can’t afford cars. 50% of households in London don’t have access to any motor vehicle.
Question, because I don’t
Question, because I don’t know. Is that because they are poor or is it because public transport around London actually works and is affordable so they don’t waste money on owning a car?
tigersnapper wrote:
The availability of affordable and efficient public transport certainly makes a difference I would imagine – we don’t have a car although we could afford one because public transport is is pretty adequate (plus we cycle most places of course), but the figures do show that poorer households are much less likely than the average to have a car, in households with income below £10,000 only 12% have a car, below £20,000 only 22%. Given the high costs of car ownership in London, with various charges, parking permits and very high insurance, especially, ironically, in the most deprived areas, for a lot of poorer people not having a car is simply because it’s impossible to afford rather than a choice.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Lies, anyone without a car is an elite tofu munching wokerati road louse. I do not accept the creation of LTN’s pandering to these people at the expense of the hard working poor motorist, forced to drive an X3 as government polciies penalising drivers make X5s unaffordable.
/s
tigersnapper wrote:
If you can’t afford to buy a car you are forced into public transport even if it is not the lowest whole life cost.
tigersnapper wrote:
To summarise Rendel’s answer – both.
Especially in inner London, a car has more costs and fewer benefits – for many, it’s a genuine choice (not an economic necssity) not to have a car. Or to have one car, rather than two.
Inner London residents tend to be younger and less likely to have children too, I think, which also makes cars less useful.
So just drive to two petrol
So just drive to two petrol stations and buy 30quids worth each time
Nothing stopping People from
Nothing stopping People from partial fills and topping off somewhere else … other than inconvenience and time.
Also … more stops for fuel can mean more tax collected.
Are people that selfish that
Are people that selfish that they fall for this crap?
don simon fbpe wrote:
Yes
hawkinspeter wrote:
Its not C**p if your on minimum or low wages and you like in many area’s public transport is a none starter.
Try working shifts and relying on public transport
Stephankernow wrote:
Then the funds which Mr *unt has suddenly found on his magic money tree should go into improving public transport and/or lowering the tax burden for the lowest paid rather than handing out freebies to those who are already well off. Subsidising fuel is a totally non-targeted measure which benefits the rich just as much as the poor, in fact it benefits the rich rather more because they are likely to use their cars more often and to drive thirstier models.
The analysis by the
The analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that benefits for “middle England” – largely focused on NI cuts and chiuld benefit changes for people with salaries of 40k to 80k – are being paid for by the less rich and the very rich.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/sweet-and-sour-budget-combines-8-billion-election-year-personal-tax-cuts-with-post-election-plans-for-38-billion-of-tax-rises-and-spending-cuts/
mattw wrote:
This is true, but balances against budgets over the last 20 years which have been squeezing the middle earners.
As someone in that middle band, I am not uncomfortable paying more tax to support those earning less than 40k, but definitely not in favour of paying more tax while those earning over 80k do not.
My preferred method for tax cuts would always be to increase the personal allowance, although even this probably favours the higher rate tax payers more.
Stephankernow wrote:
Did that, driving to my work for more than 15 years, but that’s relatively speaking a minority of the cars on the road.
There are lots of people in urban and extra-urban/suburban areas that could use public transport if it was cheap and reliable. Thanks to the Tories repeatedly reducing the money available to councils and reducing bus services in many such areas, including Shropshire, it is unbelievably bad.
Combine that with car-centric planning (which makes it difficult or nigh-on impossible for anyone to use an alternative) and you get even more cars on the road.
There are a huge number of unnecessary or additional journeys that are made simply because there is a car on the driveway/road/pavement and it’s oh-so easy to just jump in and drive somewhere.
And why is the annual rise in train fares (3.8% in 2022, 5.9% in 2023, 4.9% in 2024) never mirrored in fuel duty? Because increasing tax on fuel or car ownership in general is considered a vote-loser, plain and simple, and always spun as a negative. The media pander to the idea that car drivers are universally and uniquely “hard-pressed” and are the victims of a fake “war on motorists” despite the fact that driving is subsided to the hilt while everyone else trying to get from A to B has to endure shoddy, dirty and unreliable or non-existent services.
And that’s before we get onto the dreadful casualty statistics and the harmful effects of pollution and noise, the cost of car crashes – even those where they just drive into a building [the forum topic is at 2,345 posts to date] – the cost to the economy of congestion, the cost of road maintenance and the ridiculous amount of money spent on new roads or new layouts. And not forgetting the million or so uninsured drivers, a similar number of cars with no MoT, the fact that the vast majority of drivers are selfish enough that they refuse to obey speed limits and are upset when they are caught flouting the law.
“But how will I (activity
“But how will I (activity “requiring” a motor vehicle*) if driving gets more expensive?”
I mean – some people even live in their vehicles…
* Because we build our lives around mass motoring because we can, and because the infrastucture, amenities and housing are so designed, and ultimately because everyone else does. Things that even mildly challenge that will appear existential to some.
chrisonabike wrote:
Housing designed around cars? Do you live in the Truman Show?
Apart from the wealthier end of the market, most house absolutely don’t have enough parking capacity for the explosion in car ownership – before you even consider works vans.
You’re quite right. I moved
You’re quite right. I moved to a fifth floor flat and bought a a truck for each of my 6 kids. Now some of them have partners what am I supposed to do with all the vehicles?
Also have you noticed how garages seem to get smaller every year?
The average ’50’s house will
The average ’50’s house will get a mini in it (garage), anything now, forget it..
belugabob wrote:
Also: they’re still building West Craigs on the edge of Edinburgh. Dunno if you’d consider this the “wealthier end of the market” – I’d guess “starter homes” based on a quick visit (but I’m no estate agent)? They tout some “affordable” homes but they weren’t built yet so I couldn’t check.
For 1,700 new homes there will be a new primary school, nursery, health centre and cafe apparently. Not seeing other shops or other ameneties noted. I wonder how people will do the shopping (couple of minutes by car, 10 – 20 min walk depending on where you are / where they put paths in)?
Seemed pretty much the usual “homes for people with cars” with facilities for same. Just with the odd bonus wider path (“shared use” …) running through. (They advertise “miles of cycleways & footways being built”). Given the position (outer edge of city, surrounded by effective ring road / arterials I’m betting they will be bought by people who do drive and consider that necessary although there is a station near / bus will go there.
Just next to them – Cammo Meadows, another not-yet-finished development, maybe a bit “wealthier”? But there are even flats – and as far as I can see there were zero cycle parking facilities but ample car parking. (Think that’s counter to Edinburgh Council’s policies but then these may have changed recently).
Clearly the developers aren’t building stuff which they don’t think will sell. These people are absolutely going to do the shopping by car, do the school run by car etc. We are still “predicting and providing” and baking in car dependency for the following decades.
And clearly we can’t just populate this with the Dutch; we’ll just get normal UK folks, who drive. And even if we did those from NL would likely abandon the idea of transport cycling from there once they saw the roads and the “cycle facilities”. Only – maybe – like the Dutch – we could have considered site (greenfield) and made more effort with existing infra AND conditions on development beforehand?
chrisonabike wrote:
But that means I don’t have a shit load of concrete, nor am I heating 182m cubed (based on average house sized at 76m with 2.4m ceiling height) of unnecessary space, or do I buy a crap load of furniture, etc. Plus whenever I leave home, I never use the car…. Because it is the car…
My heating bill this winter has been a little over £30.00 and given that there are only around 1500 Passiv Haus build in UK… 😉
I find it strange that some people that live in bricks and mortar could have the arrogance to question my green credentials.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Indeed – and if you don’t switch it on either that would be even “better”!
I rather favour this kind of thing – but most people don’t. And it turns out that – as far as change is concerned (reversing Maggie’s famous quote) – there is such a thing as society – or rather the importance of systems, groups, organisations and “culture” is large.
Anyway that gets us back to “design features of humans” and stuff like “hope and aspiration”, “conspicuous consumption” and “what our ancestors called luxuries we call necessities”. Definitely above my pay grade (not complaining, that is sufficient for luxuries like bicycles!)
Quote:
There’s always the possibility of building new housing stock to Passive House standards, without paying for the certificate. Probably too expensive for housebuilders that throw up cheap crappy boxes.
It’d be interesting to see how many people have MVHR (Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery) installed as a way of improving indoor air quality (personal health) and reducing heating bills.
Yes, only think as far as a
Yes, only think as far as a car key and themselves
No.
No.
£5 billion giveaway to
£5 billion giveaway to drivers – yes coz jerk Sunak (un-elected) belated a desperado comment re drivers so he had to deliver..as he won’t get back in but is desperately trying to. This country is dying never mind anything to do with a bicycle
Alot of people are struggling
Alot of people are struggling and need to drive to work, Shift workers, nurses, essential servives , teachers, carers, people in rural areas etc etc.
Public transport is none existant for many people and cycling is not an option or practical. I have no problem and its NOT a give away its OUR money NOT the governments.
If this went on , Costs will rise people will charge for their services. People who work on low wages will be hit the hardest.
Why not tax cobalt battery powered cars? Cobalt cannot be recycled!
Stephankernow wrote:
Unless you have your own printing press I think you’l find that it is actually the government’s money that they let you use, without it you would be back to the barter system.
Backladder wrote:
Unless you have your own printing press I think you’l find that it is actually the government’s money that they let you use, without it you would be back to the barter system.— Stephankernow
You’re conflating money with cash. The printed items you refer to are just a physical representation of money, or an IOU for your money.
I know, I only imagine I have
I know, I only imagine I have any money, in reality I have nothing!
Maybe we could do with better
Maybe we could do with better public transport and better infrastructure to make more journeys viable by bike?
bikes wrote:
Those things would be good but won’t make a great deal of difference to many people in many places any time soon. I want the lives of poorer people who rely on their cars made easier asap. Fuel Duty might not be the best tool – it may be possible to provide more help with the same amount of money used in a more targeted way. Of course, the focus on FD is as much about ‘optics’ as anything.
Longer-term, we should definitely be improving public transport and cycling but our governments tend to be poor at long-term, joined-up thinking – especially when they’re in gasping and flailing like this one.
The lack of commitment to cycling is especially frustrating when it can be a cheap, healthy, efficient answer to so many transport questions – but I imagine we’re agreed on that.
bikes wrote:
A lot of people don’t use public transport not because of its cost or reliability but because they – the horror! the horror! – don’t want to have to sit next to strangers or near to ‘the sort of people that they think use public transport’.
I think we already do, but
I think we already do, but people need to be persuaded to use them for the shorter school run type journeys. Don’t forget that just 30% fewer cars on the roads will make the roads we already have much safer for cycling (and put more than a couple of hundred £££s in the pockets of the people and out of the hands of the corrupt tories).
Excellent news, benefits the
Excellent news, benefits the normal people who need and use vehicles.
Only the ones driving
Only the ones driving polluting engine powered ones 🙁
I love my bike wrote:
Quite, my used diesel golf will produce many many times less emissions during the time I have it against buying a new electric car
It’s almost impossible to
It’s almost impossible to state that as a fact, the whole debate is extremely complicated and due to manufacturers not being transparent you’d be a fool to state that EV is significantly more environmentally friendly than an ICE https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/, isn’t it time someone brought Hydrogen motors to the table?
Hydrogen powered vehicles
Hydrogen powered vehicles have been around for ages … other than Plant, don’t expect them to spread – or at least not in the UK.
The UK government has stated that Hydrogen has no place in domestic heating, and extrapolating from that, other than specialist applications [such as plant], the infrastructure for hydrogen deployment will not exist.
Personally [and not just because I’ve worked in the gas industry for 20+ years and my job is designing gas systems], the car manufacturers have sold the dream of EV; it fits in quite nicely with the UKG plan of Net Zero and everyone becoming micro-generators through PV and battery installations… and to be cold in winter because of AS/GS heat pumps … all while watching the digits spin on their electric meters.
[This can turn in to a major rant that I haven’t got the energy to write and you haven’t got the the time or willpower to read]
And there we have the
And there we have the possible problem, UKG is the driving force here and given that the current cabal have hung their flag on the carbon fuel mast and the superficial benefits if EVs for their own personal gains. I would not be trusting the UKG on matters such as this.
I’m not a huge fan of heat pumps because of the capital costs vs benefits, but that may change. There are other, and IMHO, better solutions for reducing the energy demand for home heating in UK.
And as someone that runs a solar system, UK does not provide enough light in winter for PV to be sustainable (unless you have a football field sized garden that you’re prepared to cover with panels).
Yup. If the issue is massive
Yup. If the issue is massive overuse at some point efficiency won’t cut it and we are facing reduction in use. We can choose – either voluntary now or involuntary later*.
People rightly rail at governments but their actions can be rather limited – at least our less autocratic and dictatorial ones. It’s clearly safer to refuse to make some things easy (eg. active travel); making some things difficult can be done – but like a weak parent they’re very reluctant to say “No. Enough.” to a large chunk of the population.
* In the past we’ve managed to sidestep this issue several times with technology and learning to exploit different resources – at the cost of *different* problems after decreasing periods of plenty.
I saw an article about an
I saw an article about an army lorry recently where hydrogen was in use. However, on reading the detail it became apparent that the lorry is used to burn hydrogen to turn into electric to recharge electric vehicles ! Not really seeing how that is green – the efficiency must be poor.
This one? https://arstechnica
This one? https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/this-beast-of-a-chevy-colorado-is-hydrogen-powered-will-be-tested-by-the-army/
It does run off hydrogen but also carries a large battery that it charges from its fuel cells that can be put into anything else, presumably not just other vehicles but radar stations etc. The way things are going I expect to see a civilian version on the streets of London in the not too distant future…
That’s not to far away from
That’s not to far away from coal fired powered stations producing power for “green” EVs…
Is it possible that it was a testbed for hydrogen burning motors?
It does, on the surface, sound a bit silly. Link?
JCB have designed, tested and
JCB have designed, tested and built hydrogen engines for plant that work the same way as current ICE.
They have also covered a number of Merc Vito vans with their hydrogen powerplant.
First Bus run hydrogen powered busses … including double decker … with busses in Aberdeen having clocked over a million miles.
As I said before… without the financial input driven by the domestic heating market, large scale infrastructure won’t exist in the UK.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
It takes roughly 13,000 miles of driving for the additional Co2 manufacturing emissions of a new electric car to break even against a traditional petrol car, so unless you are going to get rid of your car before you have driven 13,000 miles, your statement is untrue. Additionally, an electric car has no tailpipe PM2 or NoX emissions which your diesel Golf will have in spades, so your claim is absolute nonsense.
Rendel Harris wrote:
On the other hand if I keep running my existing 9 year old car. It might create more emissions as I drive than an electric car. BUT, unless I scrap the car, someone else would be driving my current creating emissions (and probably driving further than me each year too) while I am driving the new electric car.
Fair point and the reason why
Fair point and the reason why ultimately more ULEZ-type schemes will be required to remove the most polluting cars from the roads (not yours, obviously). But that’s not the same as claiming that running a used car will create “many many times less emissions” than buying a new electric one, something that’s only true if you plan to drive it less than 13,000 miles and then never buy another; even then that’s only true for CO2 emissions and disregards particulate emissions, nitrous oxide etc.
I appreciate that both you
I appreciate that both you and wycombewheeler are making genuine points, but I think you’re mistaken. The argument is, “If I sell my car, someone else drives it, so it makes no difference to that car. But, I’ve bought another.”
This only makes a difference if there is more driving. Presumably, the person buying your car no longer drivers their older car.
Buying and selling a car doesn’t increase the number of cars in the ‘system’.
Or they buy them so everyone
Or they buy them so everyone in the household has a car, including each child. Or they have more than one car per person.
I think we are the about the only house on our estate with one car.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Rendel the liar.
For one it’s DIESEL not petrol
B) see report below disproving your lies
If we take those EEA report figures, then the production, transport and combustion of petrol in a 58mpg vehicle, and its maintenance, is responsible for some 0.23 tonnes of greenhouse gases per 1,000 miles. That’s excluding the emissions created in production, since the car already exists and is in use.
As we’ve mentioned, the same EEA report estimates the total CO2 burden of an EV produced and run in Europe to be just over 20 tonnes. However, without wishing to turn this into an elaborate GCSE maths scenario, the reality is that most EVs today use much bigger batteries than the 24kWh pack assumed in this data. So, we’ve doubled the four-tonne emissions burden of battery production stated in the EEA’s data, therefore assuming an eight tonne battery production burden for a 48kWh lithium-ion EV instead. This takes the total lifecycle emissions, including manufacturing, to run an EV over 150,000km (93,205 miles) on European mains grid electricity to 24.5 tonnes. That equates to 0.26 tonnes per 1,000 miles – slightly more than the used petrol car.
To put it another way: if the manufacturing alone of that 48kWh EV alone is accountable for 14 tonnes of CO2 emissions (as per the EEA report), that same emissions burden could cover over 60,000 miles of use in an existing, second-hand car, assuming it were doing 58mpg. After that point, an EV’s vastly lower running emissions makes it the greener car.
Diesel being significantly
Diesel being significantly worse for the environment due to its PM2 and NOX emissions than petrol so I’m not sure why you think that’s a win.
Well done for proving that you know how to copy and paste from the Internet, unfortunately you are clearly unable to copy and paste an unbiased report, hilariously it’s from cargurus.co.uk, a site that exists for the buying and selling of secondhand cars. Well they are going to have no vested interest in promoting secondhand cars in their article entitled “What’s Greener: A Used Car Or A New Electric Vehicle?” are they? So, they’ve taken an EEA report and included the CO2 emissions involved in building an electric car, but not those involved in building a petrol car, then they’ve doubled the size of battery, but even with that jiggery-pokery they’ve only managed to come out with the emissions neck and neck. It should be noted also that the report’s figures for a petrol vehicle assume that the petrol vehicle averages 58 mpg over its lifetime, a real world figure only achievable by the most economical brand-new cars on the market today, so not one to be expected from a secondhand car. Do you really expect a report to be taken seriously when it contains sentences such as “After all, [buying a secondhand car is an] instant win; you’re saving a huge portion of a car’s whole-life emissions by effectively cutting out the production burden.”? The production burden still exists, it just so happens that somebody has paid for it before you. You could equally well buy a new electric car and then sell it after 20,000 miles and say that because you only owned it for maybe 5% of its lifetime it was incredibly green because you are only responsible for that percentage of the construction costs, the rest is down to subsequent owners. Ridiculous logic.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Dont be a dope, spinning it like usual
It’s not meant to be a comparison of buying a new one, it’s a used diesel vs a new electric
Get lost now kindly.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Well down to your usual standard of intellectual argument when faced with facts, well done. By the way, why would you be bothered about emissions anyway? You informed us a few weeks ago that it was okay to produce as much CO2 as you want “because it’s a natural gas”, so why are you arguing the toss over which type of car produces most?
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m not bothered about CO2, that’s the only thing you are and will ever be right about.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
So you’re not bothered about CO2 but have attempted, with multiple posts and going to search out an (incredibly biased) article to try to prove your case, to engage in an argument in order to prove that your car will be responsible for fewer CO2 emissions than an EV. Time weighing a bit heavily on your hands is it?
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
— Left_is_for_LosersTailpipe emissions are just one part of it. Replacing fossil fuel cars with EVs does not address the many other issues arising from private car use.
Does the battery pack last the life of the car? Is the burden of disposal/recycling taken into consideration? And is the lifetime of an EV similar to a petrol/diesel vehicle?
90%+ of those that post on
90%+ of those that post on here, and denigrate motorists, are motorists … car to the start of the Save the Planet ride …. food delivery to the local shop by big diesel trucks … green electricity provided by wood pellets shipped across the Atlantic by ships burning bunker fuel … …. less time pretending more time cycling. ?
Butchering Orwell – we’re all
Butchering Orwell – we’re all motorists! But some are more motorists than others…
… and just for now, that may be quite helpful (as well as having benefits to the individual driving a bit less).
My view is that this is a
My view is that this is a budget for Shrodinger’s Conservative Voter.
Benefits for Middle England, on salaries of approx 35k to 80k, paid for by the less rich and the very rich, and savings on public services paid for by service users.
The OBR predictions demonstrate that said Conservative voter will be bent over and porked from 2025.
It’s a classic pre election
It’s a classic pre election trap setter. Brown/Darling played similar games in 2010.
They’ve simply spent the money Labour was going to raise from the Non Dom reform on the NI cut meaning Labour either have to change their policies or raise taxes in order to ‘balance the books’.
The reality is that both parties are committed to big tax rises from 2025 onwards.
It was a moveable shipping
It was a moveable shipping container rather than a lorry but would need a lorry to move it about!
Here’s the page but you’ll need to turn off java script or use incognito mode to see anything useful
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24137136.merville-barracks-trials-new-hydrogen-power-charging-station/
Hydrogen is taken into the fuel cell and converted into zero-emission electricity which is then transported through a wire to the charging port.
The facility can charge up to four electric vehicles at once, with the vehicle charging time depending on how many vehicles are plugged in.