MBY & Appeasement

[Gludy]

I have just read what MBY is saying on the red diesel issue in the new issue that dropped through my door this morning.

In it, MBY state that they are not rushing into the debate and will not panic etc but they are clearly putting forward the argument that we should go for a parity with Europe and a new marine fuel class of diesel of the fuel cost because they believe that this is the best way to avoid a 300% to 400% increase.

Whilst not for a moment doubting the sincerity of their point, it is illogical and politically naive as well as inviting a situation that will put UK boating past the ability of many to afford.

1. Europe does not have a standard parity price.

2. The UK totally ignores Europe on its road fuel parity - this dwarfs any leisure marine use. For the UK government to follow the logic of parity of price in marine use would expose it to leverage to do the same on road use - they just dare not accept the principle in one area and not another.

3. It totally ignores all the costing and practical issues raised in the MBM charter by introducing yet more pumps etc at the dockside. This would prove very, very expensive for the scale of the fuel being sold.

4. Its near impossible to administer and police.

I just heard the Gordon Brown proposed a new system for UK truckers that involved using GPS systems to monitor each UK mile they do - its aim in the end was to help them only pay UK rates in the UK and pay cheaper rates when delivering to Europe - it seems this proposal would cost 5 times more to run than the money it would raise. This is how stupid goverment can be along with some of its academic advisors.

In the marine industry, the amount of fuel involved for leisure boaters is tiny compared to all other uses - I agree with MBY that we cannot win based soley on the affordability issue but introducing a leisure class/colour of fuel is a ridiculous, costly, impractical solution and it beggars belief that MBY should be advocating such a policy and in so doing ensure that we have lost before we have begun.

Appeasement has never worked with Europe and MBY flashing a peace of white paper around, Chamberlain style, after inviting in a doubling of fuel prices, saying words to the effect "settled in our time" will not wash. Its the sure road to the 300% to 400% hike that will decimate cruising motor boating. If we advocate a 200% increase how the hell do we expect to trust government to keep the relative pricing to road fuel at that level? They certainly would never guarantee to hold that position. Appeasing them like that just makes full parity with road fuel very easy.

We should be campaining along the MBM charter lines and I would very much like to know what charter points MBY disagrees with and why.

It is not sufficient for Tom to state that he is still formulating an approach - the fact is that he is advocating an appeasement policy



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[2_rollocks]

The fact is that Tom is a journalist and to the best of my knowledge doesn't own a boat in the UK so will personally be unaffected by any changes to the taxation of red diesel. Unless you have some form of vested interest then you can't expect someone to put up much of a fight, even if they are a magazine editor.

If I have my facts wrong then I apologise in advance, and this is not meant as any particular criticism of Tom, just a personal observation.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

I frankly do not care if Tom has three heads, four arms and a blue skin - all I want him to do is see the folly of the appeasement policy he is advocating.

There are many cost in introducing yet another tax class of fuel just for liesure boaters (much easier to raise the VAT level and let commercial folk claw it back).

The fact is that our commercial haulage industry in the UK pays the full whack of road fuel taxation - the goverment could change VAT levels on road fuel so as to guard the commercial users from further price hikes but they do not. They plan to increase fuel tax that cannot be clawed back.

In practice of course its all a nonesense as there is no logical difference between commercial and leisure use. The truck or boat carrying a load of leisure products is providing non-essientails as much as the folks buying them are buying non-essentails but then 95% of all consumption is non-essential.

With boating a cruise liner carrying holiday makes is no different to a charter boat or a private boat - the consumption is all for leisure purposes. In practice governments react to difficulties and problems - they are not good at keeping consistant logical policies and they waste money on a grand scale. So there is no suggestion of stopping red for commercial boats because that would cause too much of an outcry and would be impractical. Our best bet is to place practical obstacles in the way of government whilst reinforcing that there is no tax gain for them only tax loss. The MBM charter is a very good start.

I persoanlly think that they can use VAT if they want to increase price. They alreay have a 5% rate on it - I bet they would increase revenue if they raised this to 17.5%.

When income tax dropped from 98% highest marginal rate to 40% - tax revenue increased. Good parasites keep the host alive and all every government is, is a form of parasite.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[lyc]

Be it Red diesel, cigarettes, alcohol, children's clothing, cars or whatever, it is a TAX and I would not support an increase in tax of any description.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroadsandEastcoastBoating/>Broads & East Coast Boating</A>

 

[ccscott49]

Appeasement never works, it just shows weakness and the fact you are not sure of your position. In some parts of the UK, you already pay more per litre of red diesel, than I do in the meddy, for duty payed or taxed diesel, what is going on? Fight for your red diesel, dont let this government walk over you, the French would not allow it, the truckers should behave like the French and blockade the roads, its about time the british had a revolution, maybe then the government would understand people have had enough of there underhand dealings. IMHO of course!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

"is a TAX and I would not support an increase in tax of any description. "

I agree but in this case the increase is almost pointless because no more tax will be raised - the effect will be to just stop many persuing their hobby.

The government raise the tax - the collect less tax - see the MBM charter logic.

The amounts of money are so tiny as to not appear on the govermenet radar. if they were logical I would not be worried but they are not.


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[PhilF]

doesnt stop smokers or drinkers, nor I suspect will it affect most Boaters. The few will suffer the majority would pay

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

If diesel reached road prices there are many who do not even have the option to pay because they simply do not have the money to even make the choice and would have to leave motor boating. It really is not as simple as comparing it to the tax on smoke and drink.

Where I am based we currently pay £1.20 per 5 litres.
If we had to pay £5 (same as road fuel) then for a typical crusing boat doing say 15 galls per hour and 100 hours per annum the extra cost would be £5,700 per annum.
I know many who do 200 hours and use 20 galls/hour - extra cost then is £15,200 p.a.

Many boaters sacrifice a lot for their hobby and would simply not be able to afford significant price increases. If you tried putting a packet of fags up to £12 to £15 I think many smokers would have to give up - but then we could nip across the channel for them and bring in cheap booze and drink

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[MedDreamer]

I don't know Tom but looking at his photo and having read some of his reminisences, firstly in his Tomfoolery column and more recently in his MBY editorial and on this forum, comparison with Neville Chamberlin seems a bit wide of the mark, doesn't look like someone who would shirk from a fight if he saw value in it

Perhaps Tom's compromise is just a more realistic, pragmatic view of what is really achievable and an acknowledgement that if you insist on a winner/loser scenario there is only going to be one winner and it won't be the moterboater.

Alright Paul (Gludy) I'll get the drinks in.................



<hr width=100% size=1>Living the dream

 

[Gludy]

Martyn

I like the offer for the drink but it seems I need to get out to Mallorca to have one

I never get personal in posts and like to stick the the issues. fighting your corner is not polarising the situation into a win all , lose all. by fighting your coner you may determine a more favourable outcome.

Put it this way .. Tom may be a cool guy but I would not want him to negotiate a deal for me because he basic premise is to think that an offer of doubling our prices and a new class of fuel would satisfy them ... in effect it totally negates many of the obstacles and problems as highlighted in the MBM charter so that it is made easy for goverment to go all the way. It is a dmagaing thing to do.

Also no one is answering my points with any counter argument.

In truth there a re huge complications and extra costs in new pumps and new fuel having to be installed everywhere - it also forms a base for bringing parity with road fuels.

If the problems outlined in the MBM charter are not real then let Tom explain why they can be ignored - let him explain why we should advocate the creation of a totally new class of fuel and its associated costs and let him explain how this huge compromise somehow helps to achieve the objective of limiting the price rise to 200%.

None of my points are being answered - after that, maybe it my round



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[jfm]

Gludy you say no-one's answering your posts. But to be honest we have been thru this before - you make many unsubstantiated assertions and there just isn't time to rebut them all here.

FWIW I agree with Tom. You mention twice the logistic problem of 2 grades of diesel. But marinas need only stock one grade (I think?) so no new cost there. Back at the suppliers there is a further new fuel grade but they already handle zillions of different grades so one more is irrelevant. And frexample all over France there are side by side taxed/tax free diesel pumps and tanks in nearly all marinas - these all serve yachts, not commercial fishing boats. So it must be engineeringly and economically feasible to have multiple grades, because others have done it.

The facts are that the UK derogation will expire, the UK will not get enuf EU support for an extension, and UK will not want to flout EU rules, especially when to respect them will allow increase in UK taxes (let's not argue that one - I think there will be a net revenue increase, you dont, neither of us can predict the future but all that matters is the govt believes there will be a revenue increase). So if that's what's gonna happen, then a new grade of lower taxed marine diesel represents the best that can be got and that is what we should argue for imho. Hence I agree with Tom

PS, I repeat that I have no personal capital in this - I buy my fuel in France

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

The 'tomfoolery' is that his first comment on the subject (April editorial) amounted to sabotage. He used a public platform to express private opinions which were self-evidently damaging to a wide section of the MBY readership. That, in my view, deserved summary dismissal.

He is now (it appears) taking the "pragmatic" view that volunteering (on behalf of UK diesel mobo users) (what makes him think he has the right to do that?) that the rate of duty should be increased from the present 4.22p/litre to 21.2p/litre (the EU 'minimum' rate) (at least I assume that's his suggestion because I haven't seen an actual number), a 400% increase in duty, is a good campaigning position. Perhaps he thinks this is a negotiation and that by appearing 'reasonable', the other side will also be 'reasonable'?

There is only one way to limit the damage that may be caused by the loss of the derogation and that is to fight it tooth and nail, using every argument that can be mustered. That is what MBM is doing and what MBY should be doing. It is very much to be regretted that its present editorial policy (which looks like it's been made on the hoof) constitutes an utter dereliction of its responsibilities to its readers.

I will publicly join Paul to state that I have cancelled my MBY subscription and will not renew it while tom idiositt remains editor.

 

[Gludy]

JFM
"Gludy you say no-one's answering your posts."
That right they are not.

"FWIW I agree with Tom. You mention twice the logistic problem of 2 grades of diesel. But marinas need only stock one grade (I think?) so no new cost there. "

Our marina has a commercial supply for the fishing boats and would need another tank and supply alongside it. The extra costs are significant. It is nonesense to say that Marinas need only stock one grade.

"and UK will not want to flout EU rules, especially when to respect them will allow increase in UK taxes"

It flouts them now because the difference between our road fule prices and the EU is greater than between the EU and our red diesel. It totally ignores them.

It is not just me that argues a tax revenue drop - read the MBM charter.

"So if that's what's gonna happen, then a new grade of lower taxed marine diesel represents the best that can be got and that is what we should argue for imho. Hence I agree with Tom"

Why on earth do you think that starting the negotaition by conceeding so much will mean they sttle for that???

Do you not hink that the UK goverment cannot afford to accept the parity principle because it could be applied to road fuel.

There is no logic wahtsover in the foolhardy position that offering up a policy that concedes the doubling in price at the outset will achieve other than a full price hike and devastation of the motor boat industry in the UK.

Argue the ten points in the charter - I have asked Tom to spell out where he disagrees with them.

I am becoming fed up with clouds of mist being put up - please answer the ten point on the MBM charter with your views Tom. I feel that your advocation of the EU parity is a major blow to us motor boaters and feel that you are doing us harm. Please explain how appeasment can lead to preserving the new EU parity forever?
Please explain how you can ask the goverment to accept parity in one area but not another.
Do you understand how so many motor boaters already stretch themselves to run their boat and how they would expect you to fight tooth and nail to protect them?



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[MedDreamer]

Paul

You are welcome for a drink in Majorca any time. Based on what you have said when posting on this issue elsewhere theres a reasonable chance you might be joining us anyway (White diesel 45p per litre last time I was at the pump).

As I have said before, any cynicism that comes through on my posts in this subject reflect my view of this bloody government, not the active campaigners.

Martyn



<hr width=100% size=1>Living the dream

 

[oldgit]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

The goverment respose to the whinging and whining of some the road haulage lobby was to find out if it was possible to charge some sort of carnet to non UK registered haulage companies.This was at the specific request of the haulage industry not the goverment and after investigation,it proved not worth the bother.
This may come as a suprise but some among us stand back and smile at all the hot air being generated by a few fairly well off special interest groups motivated purely for their own financial benefit.I would much prefer fuel at it present price than one which encourages profligate use.Maybe now is the time for some to consider a more economical size of boat.
Ps petrol is now 5% cheaper to buy relative to average income than it was a few
years ago.

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[Gludy]

Yep I may well be joining you lot out there!

Chamberlain wasn't a coward - he just did not understand the situation - maybe he was not cynical enough

I feel like others have said that mby policy is being developed on the hoof. I simply cannot understand how walking into a meeting and opening with an acceptance of a different fuel and parity with EU can possibly help us achieve the best deal.

I also feel that even that hike would force a number of keen boaters out and there is a bit of snobbishness in the way that can be even put forward as a starting position that doubles the cost of fuel. - nor does doing that in anyway ensure they will accept that and run with it without wanting more. Your own cynicism would understand that!

The best deal may only be achieved by fighting tooth and nail - certainly doing that cannot do any harm and somehow force the only outcome as being same as road fuel prices.

I personally feel that the practical solution is to alter the VAT rate and leave it at that. This would raise more tax.

In another thread Tom said he was not advocating this policy but it is clear in todays MBY that he is advocating it.

I am also disturbed be remarks made by the minister of shipping to MBY - the minister just cannot see that to only apply breath tests to those who have boats capable of 17mph is ridiculous - nor does he have any real enforecment techniques etc. The politicians are low intellect twits of the first order and that is the problem.

If a raggie does a totally stupid thing whilst drunk and causes me to craxh in my boat then he would not have to take the breath test!!!!!!! I would !!!!!! If ministers cannot grasp the simplicity of that point, what chance is there of them understanding anything else - all we can do is fight tooth and nail, the very last thing would be to give into the twits.











<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Gludy]

Re: Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

"This may come as a suprise but some among us stand back and smile at all the hot air being generated by a few fairly well off special interest groups motivated purely for their own financial benefit."

Can you please name these special interest groups?

"I would much prefer fuel at it present price than one which encourages profligate use"

Its present price is fine - or do you mean that it should be raised to road fuel levels?



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[oldgit]

Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

Sorry for confusion.Two points here, road fuel first.Have no fist waving urge regarding present price.
As to marine fuel.Your example of 15 GPH illustrates the gulf between complainants on these forums and the vast majority of marine fuel leisure boaters with displacement and smaller craft to whom 2-3 GPH is the norm.I have yet to hear of one single instance of the owner of any smaller craft more representitive of the main gamut of fun boaters raise the wail of anguish heard from certain quarters.

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[Gludy]

Re: Full and frank exchange of ....ummm

Sorry - again I do not get a straight answer to my questions.

Who are the special interest groups?

What will be really hit is sea going cruising power boats - there are many of these in the 28 foot to 50 foot mark that use way more than 2-3 gph. Could you please name a cruising power boat that manages 2 to 3 gph? Many of these cruising power boat owners could no way afford to keep them if prices hit anywhere near road fuel levels and many of them struggle to keep their boats going now.

I know many that would simply have to get out of boating.


"Have no fist waving urge regarding present price"

What does that mean - that it does not matter to you if boat diesel goes to road fuel levels? A straight yes or no would be appreciated.

"I have yet to hear of one single instance of the owner of any smaller craft more representitive of the main gamut of fun boaters raise the wail of anguish heard from certain quarters. "

Again we deal with mist and no straight talking - what do you mean by certain quarters?

When the chap who is currently using 3 gph has to pay the equivalent of one using 9 to 12 gph maybe then they will moan. If you ask then now if they could afford 9gph to 12 gph they would say they could not possibly to afford to run a boat costing that much but that is what would happen.

My closest friends who are just normal working people, not wealthy own boats from 28 feet to 45 feet - both displacement and planing. If the full hike happened, most of them would have no choice but to get out of cruising boats.

Since I have been in boating I have always regarded all boaters the same be they rag and stick, small power boat or larger cruising power boaters but the facts are that there are many groups and factions who seem to wish to have the cruising motor boater driven out of the UK. It is really a very, very sad state of affairs.

I really would appreciate straight answers to my questions. I cannot get my head around the feeling of glee that I feel from some boating quarters at the prospect of fuel prices hitting road fuel levels and for all the wrong reasons.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[gonfishing]

Prices affect us all

I suppose pootling away on the river at 4 knts doesn't use much fuel whatever you use, diesel or petrol. I guess and it is only MHO that the apathy shown here on this forum indicates most are river dwelleres or raggies and couldn't give a damn about the annual 2 week blast out on the sea,l!!!!! Our cars are going to get more expensive to run if current prices for both derv and petrol continue to rise at current rates, so if we all don't start singing from the same song book we will ALL GET stuffed, all IMHO of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Julian

<hr width=100% size=1>