Is it time to fill up

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Oh please let there be blockades and fuel shortages again, pretty please!

You may get that wish sooner, rather than later:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4483663.stm

Lorry drivers in Scotland plan to stage a protest over fuel costs outside the Grangemouth oil refinery.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

And how is that going to make a difference? How will that do anything other than build up resentment against the people running the blockades? I remember back in 2000 queueing up for petrol, cursing the people responsible for the delays who, by their own admission, started off the fuel protests to speak out against the cost of petrol for lorries and transport firms, NOT the average person in the street who needed the stuff for their cars.

Actually Russ, the AA found that the majority of average people supported the move as they were disgusted by the huge amount of tax we pay.
Remember at the time the AA were running their own campain showing that tax at the time made up 85% of the cost of fuel.
Much as they would have liked to, the AA however couldn't come out with actual support for the blockades.
Many petrol stations in london closed down and refused to sell fuel in support of the protest, because with fuel prices so high, the number of fill and runs has skyrocketted, costing them a fortune. The stations that have gone out of business from the fuel crisis are mainly those who started charging obscene amounts for fuel, as soon as the blockade stopped, people boycotted those stations.
Despite Tony Bliar trying to make the picketers out as the bad guys, people saw the truth, that us motorists were being screwed.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Actually Russ, the AA found that the majority of average people supported the move as they were disgusted by the huge amount of tax we pay.

I remember a poll in the Mirror at the time which showed that most people were in support of the protests before and as it started, but once they saw how inconveniencing the whole thing was, they started to turn on the protestors, especially that guy who started it all, can't remember his name right now.

This is just like when people who provide a service to the public go on strike - it's as if inconveniencing the public directly will gain them sympathy and support. About 10 years ago I was out of work and there was a postal strike. My giro arrived 6 days late. OK I was living with my parents at the time and didn't need the money as much as some, but if I'd had children to support, what would the Royal Mail have expected me to say? "The kids will go without food, the house won't have any heating, but good on you fellas, you stand up to your bosses!"???

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I remember a poll in the Mirror at the time which showed that most people were in support of the protests before and as it started, but once they saw how inconveniencing the whole thing was, they started to turn on the protestors, especially that guy who started it all, can't remember his name right now.

Brynle Williams, now Conservative Assembly Member somewhere in North Wales.
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

And how is that going to make a difference? How will that do anything other than build up resentment against the people running the blockades? I remember back in 2000 queueing up for petrol, cursing the people responsible for the delays who, by their own admission, started off the fuel protests to speak out against the cost of petrol for lorries and transport firms, NOT the average person in the street who needed the stuff for their cars.

Yep, I remember that well. They backed down after some hospitals explained that they were going to have to start refusing admissions. Public support turned very dramtically against them, because the government had said 'we will review this and announce measures at the budget in two months', yet the protesters refused to stand the protest down initially. At one point, one of them was even quoted as saying that 'if a couple of people end up dying it will be worth it to get the point across'.

As public support begin to ebb away, they agreed to stand down until the budget and review it then....and that's the last we ever heard of them til now.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I remember a poll in the Mirror at the time which showed that most people were in support of the protests before and as it started, but once they saw how inconveniencing the whole thing was, they started to turn on the protestors, especially that guy who started it all, can't remember his name right now.

This is just like when people who provide a service to the public go on strike - it's as if inconveniencing the public directly will gain them sympathy and support. About 10 years ago I was out of work and there was a postal strike. My giro arrived 6 days late. OK I was living with my parents at the time and didn't need the money as much as some, but if I'd had children to support, what would the Royal Mail have expected me to say? "The kids will go without food, the house won't have any heating, but good on you fellas, you stand up to your bosses!"???

Being withing the AA at the time was great because unlike a newspaper like the mirror, the AA doesn't have to pander to the political bias of the majority of it's members.

Unlike with postal strikes, or other public service strikes (anyone noticed an increase in them since labour got back in?) where the strikers don't react to the effects on the public, the fuel protesters did, it was looking like the blockades were going to affect deliveries of essentials etc, and they called them off, despite a large portion of the public wishing them to continue until labour reversed the recent tax hikes.

I remember when it started, and I first saw Bliar trying to make them out as the bad guys, thinking "he's going to do something that will help the truckers and farmers slightly, but do nothing to help the majority of motorists who back the campain", and I believe he did.
The protesters were doing something that the ordinary motorist couldn't really do, taking a stand against the disgustingly high taxes levied on Britain's motoring community!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The protesters were doing something that the ordinary motorist couldn't really do, taking a stand against the disgustingly high taxes levied on Britain's motoring community!

Yes, and STILL end up hated by the majority of the UK for their actions.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

despite a large portion of the public wishing them to continue until labour reversed the recent tax hikes

.

Methinks you and I were watching two different versions of the story.....

The Mirror's poll was indicative of many at the time, including one commissioned by the BBC which was put to Brynle Williams (if that was his name, I can't quite remember it now) when he took part in Question Time. It was worth the license fee alone just to watch him squirm.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Yes, and STILL end up hated by the majority of the UK for their actions.

.

Methinks you and I were watching two different versions of the story.....

The Mirror's poll was indicative of many at the time, including one commissioned by the BBC which was put to Brynle Williams (if that was his name, I can't quite remember it now) when he took part in Question Time. It was worth the license fee alone just to watch him squirm.

All I can do is tell you what one of the nation's motoring organisations found at the time.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

All I can do is tell you what one of the nation's motoring organisations found at the time.

Yes but the AA, being a motoring organisation is hardly likely to be neutral on the matter. It's like asking Jezza Clarkson his opinion on the UK's speed limits.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Yes but the AA, being a motoring organisation is hardly likely to be neutral on the matter. It's like asking Jezza Clarkson his opinion on the UK's speed limits.

Sorry, that is off topic and as such I will not answer (hey, it works! )



Seriously though, the AA was badly affected by the fuel shortage, not a good financial thing to have happen when they were trying to make themselves look attractive to British Gas, if they weren't professional and interested in skewing their findings, they would have shown to have been against the blockade, as they always said they were against them from the start (despite being in agreement of the reason behind the blockades)

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Sorry, that is off topic and as such I will not answer (hey, it works! )

But as in the other case, it won't go unnoticed

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Seriously though, the AA was badly affected by the fuel shortage, not a good financial thing to have happen when they were trying to make themselves look attractive to British Gas, if they weren't professional and interested in skewing their findings, they would have shown to have been against the blockade, as they always said they were against them from the start (despite being in agreement of the reason behind the blockades)

No, what I mean is the AA's source of income - ie it's customers - are people who would be directly affected by the blockades, so they're not going to present evidence which would serve to antagonise it's members. I'm not saying the AA lied but more likely they took their customers' feeling in to account when presenting their findings....

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

No, what I mean is the AA's source of income - ie it's customers - are people who would be directly affected by the blockades, so they're not going to present evidence which would serve to antagonise it's members. I'm not saying the AA lied but more likely they took their customers' feeling in to account when presenting their findings....

If the customers (as you say, most likely to be affected by the blockades) said they weren't happy with the blockades, surely it would be foolish for the AA to present a different view to their actual findings?

A poll in a newspaper who's reader demographic contains a majority of labour supporters is more likely to be in line with labour's view on the matter, that of protesters being bad, goverment good.
Just as a poll in an anti labour paper is likely to show the opposite (assuming it has been reporting on the situation with an anti labour/pro protester bias)

A motoring organisation is going to have members from all of the political spectrum, but most importantly, all members are going to be affected by the situation, therefore most likely to give an informed result.

There's no point asking if non-motorists support a protest or not because such a protest didn't affect them directly.

[Russ]

It's a mystery to me too - however I remember the majority (if not all) the polls I saw around the time suggested the public were getting very weary of the protesters' actions. I'd consider the BBC to be as neutral as possible on the matter and each survey they undertook had the truckers as being VERY unpopular.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

It's a mystery to me too - however I remember the majority (if not all) the polls I saw around the time suggested the public were getting very weary of the protesters' actions. I'd consider the BBC to be as neutral as possible on the matter and each survey they undertook had the truckers as being VERY unpopular.

the issue could be that those polls included non-motorists, and therefore people who have not had to suffer from the taxes.

it's like asking a group of tall people if they'd support a protest against a tax on short people, then comparing he result with what short people said.


You also have the issue of what questions were asked, ie did they say "do you support the current action of the protesters?" or "would you support the protesters if it caused hospitals to turn away patients and if food could not get to the shops?"
Lies, damn lies and statistics

[Russ]

I can't quite see non-motorist being interested in such a poll really.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I can't quite see non-motorist being interested in such a poll really.

Depends if they've been told by the questioner that such a protest will mean people can't go to hospital or feed themselves, then it would affect them, and of course they'd be against it, as the majority of people would be.

Many popularist papers were talking about scenarios which the protesters had said from the beginining would never happen, ie food not getting to shops, no fuel for ambulances etc.