UK Leader of the Opposition incites Rebellion

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-02 06:27pm

Howard fuels petrol protest row

Tory leader Michael Howard has said he may well support future fuel protests provided they are lawful.
He was speaking after recent oil prices rises and with a 1.92p hike in fuel duty due to be introduced 1 September.

But his words drew fire from opponents, with the Liberal Democrats branding them the "height of irresponsibility".

Labour chairman Ian McCartney told BBC News Online: "It is worrying that he is prepared to go to this extent - encouraging disruptions."

'Anger'

A wave of fuel protests all but brought Britain to a halt in September 2000 amid concern over prices.

Some of those involved in the 2000 fuel protests say they are planning further action, including go-slow demonstrations.

Asked if the Conservatives would back new protests, Mr Howard replied: "I think that as long as they are peaceful and within the law they may well be supported."

The government is refusing to comment on whether Chancellor Gordon Brown could rethink September's planned fuel duty rise.

But the Tory leader told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I can understand that people might be very angry indeed if the government were to proceed with an increase in fuel duty at this time - it would cause great hardship to many people.

"I would entirely understand if they wanted to protest peacefully and within the law."

Mr Howard has already pressed Tony Blair to ensure the tax hike would not happen in the wake of the oil price rises.

"Just last year Gordon Brown said because of the high level and volatility of oil prices the increase in fuel duty he was then proposing should be put off," he told Today, stressing that prices were now higher.

He later qualified his remarks further during a visit to Kent, saying: "Protesters should not stop people going about their daily business."

The Tory leader's comments were condemned by Liberal Democrat spokesman Ed Davey.

"For a former home secretary to incite such disruption is astounding," said Mr Davey, although he defended the right to protest.

Oil prices eased on Wednesday by 71 cents to $38.28 (£20.89) in London at 1610 BST after Saudi Arabia said it would raise daily production by up to two million barrels.

Oil exporters' cartel Opec will meet on Thursday to discuss the issue. The latest price fluctuations followed a weekend terror attack in Saudi Arabia.

The rising price of oil had already helped to push petrol prices in the UK back above 80p a litre for the first time in four years during May.

Continued rises suggest the average price could approach the 85.32p recorded in June 2000, which sparked that year's widespread fuel protests.

Overseas focus

The chancellor is continuing to talk to Opec countries to urge an increase in oil production, says the Treasury.

A spokesman refused to be drawn, however, on speculation about whether fuel duty would rise as planned in September.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said: "The problem is rising international oil prices, which have gone up dramatically over the last few weeks.

"What we are doing, and what all parties ought to be supporting, is working with Opec, the oil production countries, to increase production and so reduce the pressure on prices.

"That is the way to resolve the problem at the pumps."

Green Party spokeswoman Jenny Jones urged the government to be more courageous in moving Britain from a "fossil fuel culture" to sustainable energy sources like wind, solar and water.

Ms Jones told BBC News 24: "We have to look to the future. It's too easy to panic at one particular rise in prices."

During the 2000 fuel protests, oil refineries were picketed to prevent the delivery of supplies to petrol stations and there were go-slow convoys on motorways.

A rush for fuel caused 90% of garages to run dry before supplies eventually arrived.

The Treasury says fuel duty has been "reduced by 13% in real terms" since 2001.

Economists say that, accounting for inflation, oil prices are below the levels of the late 1970s.

WHAT IS LEGAL?
Refinery blockades: could fall foul of laws on obstructing a public highway or trespass, depending where protesters stood
Go-slows on motorways: Police could possibly charge protesters with dangerous driving if creating hazard for faster drivers, or perhaps with obstructing highways
Demonstrations: No problem if on common land and causing no obstructions
Source: Home Office spokeswoman

WHAT MAKES UP PETROL PUMP PRICE IN UK?
75% duty and VAT
18.5% oil cost and processing
6.5% transport, marketing and retailer profit
Source: Esso

I can’t believe this guy, as home secretary he devoted himself to restricting our right to protest (and to dance in fields to repetitive beats of course) and now he’s inciting people to blockade cities. Such cynical, hypocritical, opportunism is a bit much even from a Tory I hope it backfires and bites him in the ass.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-06-02 06:49pm

The fact that the Tories are not doing well, despite Blair's problems should be enough explanation for this.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-06-02 06:50pm

Howard is a smarmy hypocritical git even for a Tory politician, and I thoroughly hope his past comes back to bury him come May next year.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-06-02 11:38pm

Good, I hope they self-destruct and Blair stays in power forever. We love Tony over here.

Blair for President!

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-02 11:51pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Good, I hope they self-destruct and Blair stays in power forever. We love Tony over here.

Well as far as I’m concerned you can have the arse licking bastard, Pres may be aiming a little high (birth clause & all) but Powell seems to be on the way out and Blair has effectively been acting as the US foreign minister for years now so you may as well make it official.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-03 12:16am

Hey thats an interesting question: Can the foreign minister of the US also be the Prime Minister of Britain, or some other situation?

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-06-03 12:25am

kojikun wrote:Hey thats an interesting question: Can the foreign minister of the US also be the Prime Minister of Britain, or some other situation?

Um...what do you mean by "foreign minister of the US"? Secretary of State?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-03 04:41am

kojikun wrote:Hey thats an interesting question: Can the foreign minister of the US also be the Prime Minister of Britain, or some other situation?

No, one of the wee things that came out of the reign of William of Orange and the various post interregnum settlements, The monarchs advisors must be British and they must be elected member of the House of Commons.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-06-03 11:15am

So wait... The Prime Minister, the guy who actually does everything, is technically one of the Queen's advisors?

The British system of government is teh l0lz.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-03 11:18am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:So wait... The Prime Minister, the guy who actually does everything, is technically one of the Queen's advisors?

The British system of government is teh l0lz.

Yup, but he has the power. So really, he just advises her to shut up or say something else when it suits him and Parliament.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-03 11:23am

isn't 3/4 of the cost of fuel in the UK taxes? It does seem silly to raise the taxes on fuel now, when the price is so inflated.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-03 11:26am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
kojikun wrote:Hey thats an interesting question: Can the foreign minister of the US also be the Prime Minister of Britain, or some other situation?
No, one of the wee things that came out of the reign of William of Orange and the various post interregnum settlements, The monarchs advisors must be British and they must be elected member of the House of Commons.

I don't technically think there's anything in the British constitution to stop him being British, an MP and PM and also US Secretary of State though. Does the US Sec State have to be a citizen? Even if they don’t isn’t there something in the US constitution about not accepting titles from foreign governments so sadly for TB he’ll just have to keep on acting for the US in an unofficial capacity.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-06-03 11:27am

Col. Crackpot wrote:isn't 3/4 of the cost of fuel in the UK taxes? It does seem silly to raise the taxes on fuel now, when the price is so inflated.

I doubt they will go up. Its not meant to happen till September, so I think the government is just waiting till nearer the time before announcing anything. They wouldn't want to say it won't happen, then the price for some reason suddenly falls making it not such an issue.

If it does take place though, Howard will be in shit. As with most protests like this, public support will be strong at first, but when the protests start to make life awkward for them, support will fall away. Then Howard will either have to remove support, which wouldn't look good, or support unpopular protests.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-03 11:28am

Col. Crackpot wrote:isn't 3/4 of the cost of fuel in the UK taxes? It does seem silly to raise the taxes on fuel now, when the price is so inflated.

The rise was decided upon quite a while ago and is already factored into spending plans. We can’t avoid it now without cutting something or raising a different tax.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-03 11:35am

Plekhanov wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:isn't 3/4 of the cost of fuel in the UK taxes? It does seem silly to raise the taxes on fuel now, when the price is so inflated.
The rise was decided upon quite a while ago and is already factored into spending plans. We can’t avoid it now without cutting something or raising a different tax.

well then cut something, or raise another tax. Good grief, if the government here even hinted about increasing the gasoline tax in the middle of this price peak the Teamsters Union would be parading flatbeds of horse shit along Pennsylvania Avenue.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-03 11:53am

Col. Crackpot wrote:well then cut something, or raise another tax. Good grief, if the government here even hinted about increasing the gasoline tax in the middle of this price peak the Teamsters Union would be parading flatbeds of horse shit along Pennsylvania Avenue.

If you know what to cut or what to raise without pissing off another significant bunch of people I’m sure Gordon would be very pleased if you’d forward your solution along to him.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-03 11:59am

Piss off the farmers again, they're used to it so they won't mind having to pay more again.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-03 12:19pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Piss off the farmers again, they're used to it so they won't mind having to pay more again.

Since when did the farmers pay for stuff? Or by pay more did you mean give them slightly less money?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-03 12:26pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Piss off the farmers again, they're used to it so they won't mind having to pay more again.
Since when did the farmers pay for stuff? Or by pay more did you mean give them slightly less money?

Well they always complain at least, usually from the expensive mobile phones they have in their Range Rover Vogue. The poor sods, they can only afford last year's model!

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-03 11:02pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:So wait... The Prime Minister, the guy who actually does everything, is technically one of the Queen's advisors?

The British system of government is teh l0lz.
Yup, but he has the power. So really, he just advises her to shut up or say something else when it suits him and Parliament.

err not quite.
The PM is first among equels in cabinet, allthough there are concerns that government is being centered to much around the PM.
The Queen exercizes the Royal Perogative on the advice of her elected ministers who are answerable to the House of Commons.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-03 11:07pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
kojikun wrote:Hey thats an interesting question: Can the foreign minister of the US also be the Prime Minister of Britain, or some other situation?
No, one of the wee things that came out of the reign of William of Orange and the various post interregnum settlements, The monarchs advisors must be British and they must be elected member of the House of Commons.
I don't technically think there's anything in the British constitution to stop him being British, an MP and PM and also US Secretary of State though. Does the US Sec State have to be a citizen? Even if they don’t isn’t there something in the US constitution about not accepting titles from foreign governments so sadly for TB he’ll just have to keep on acting for the US in an unofficial capacity.

I think there is a bit of statute lying around from the time of William 3 (people got annoyed with his habit of listening to his advisors from Holland) that more or less prohibits anyone but a Brit from being elected to the HofC..but I cannot be arsed to look it up.

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2004-06-04 03:09am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:isn't 3/4 of the cost of fuel in the UK taxes? It does seem silly to raise the taxes on fuel now, when the price is so inflated.
The rise was decided upon quite a while ago and is already factored into spending plans. We can’t avoid it now without cutting something or raising a different tax.
well then cut something, or raise another tax. Good grief, if the government here even hinted about increasing the gasoline tax in the middle of this price peak the Teamsters Union would be parading flatbeds of horse shit along Pennsylvania Avenue.

/Insert Hoffa joke here.

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2004-06-04 03:13am

All Commonwealth citizens can stand IIRC. It is a residence issue. Also IIRC Nancy Astor was American by birth, but was married to a Brit when she represented Plymouth in the 1930s.

Also, Jamie Lee Curtis holds title via her husband, who is a member of the House of Lords.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-04 03:44am

Exmoor Cat wrote:All Commonwealth citizens can stand IIRC. It is a residence issue. Also IIRC Nancy Astor was American by birth, but was married to a Brit when she represented Plymouth in the 1930s.

Also, Jamie Lee Curtis holds title via her husband, who is a member of the House of Lords.

Indeed, however an American citizen fresh of the plane could not stand any more than a Brit could stand in America.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-04 03:45am

Plekhanov wrote:I don't technically think there's anything in the British constitution to stop him being British, an MP and PM and also US Secretary of State though. Does the US Sec State have to be a citizen? Even if they don’t isn’t there something in the US constitution about not accepting titles from foreign governments so sadly for TB he’ll just have to keep on acting for the US in an unofficial capacity.

The Secretary of State, while not specifically restricted to Americans by birth, could concievably be limited as such due to the fact that they're in the line of succession should the President (and Vice President, Speaker of the House, Senate President pro tempore) be killed.

However, given that such a scenario is extremely unlikely, and that they could concievably simply skip the Secretary of State if they were ineligible for service as President (since the line of succession is not listed in the Constitution, but rather some law that Congress passed), I doubt that it's impossible for a non-native or even a non-citizen to become Secretary of State... however, they'd probably have to be one fucking amazing person in order for the people (and most importantly, the Senate) to accept them as a Cabinet member and highly trusted advisor to the President.