The "war on motorists" is a myth

Everyone's feeling the pinch, but we shouldn't mistake that for a war on motorists.

Motorists are feeling the pinch. Prices at the pump are rising while most people’s pay packages have barely kept up with inflation in recent years.

But so too are rail users. Many fares will rise by 6.2 per cent while some commuters will face an 11 per cent hike.

New research from IPPR today shows that although it may not feel like it as rising oil costs push up petrol prices, motorists have actually done fairly well over the last decade—especially compared to rail and bus users. From 2000 to 2010, total motoring costs – that is including purchase costs, maintenance, petrol, taxes and insurance – have fallen in real terms by 8 per cent. Meanwhile, rail fares have increased by 17 per cent and bus and coach fares by 24 per cent.


Fuel prices drive perceptions about motoring costs, but only actually account for about a third of an average household’s weekly motoring costs of £77. Although fuel duty rates on petrol and diesel are high compared to other countries, they were actually 7 per cent lower in real terms in 2011 than in 2001. And compared to other countries, British motorists get away without paying a registration tax on a new car and we barely have any toll roads.

Yet since becoming Chancellor, George Osborne has delayed rises in fuel duty on three occasions at a total cost of £2.8 billion per year. In these tough economic times where the Government is trying to cut the deficit, every tax cut has to be paid for elsewhere—whether from cuts to the police, hospitals, or childcare provision.

Oil prices are extremely likely to continue rising over time. Rather than seeking to cushion this blow for UK motorists, planned annual increases in motoring taxes should be part of a rational government policy to make the transport system fairer, more sustainable and more resilient to oil price shocks.

If we are to spend additional money on transport, and there are good arguments for doing so, we should target rail and bus users rather than motorists. Buses are the most available and frequently used mode of public transport in England, making up two-thirds of all passenger journeys. Passenger miles on the railways have increased 60 per cent in a decade.

Everyone is feeling the pinch. But in these tough times, improving bus, coach and rail services and bring down their costs is more important than cutting fuel duty.

Lots of cars. Photograph: Getty Images

Will Straw is Director of Britain Stronger In Europe, the cross-party campaign to keep Britain in the European Union. 

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Theresa May won't exclude students from the net migration target

The Prime Minister believes the public would view the move as "a fix". 

In a letter to David Cameron shortly after the last general election, Philip Hammond demanded that students be excluded from the net migration target. The then foreign secretary, who was backed by George Osborne and Sajid Javid, wrote: "From a foreign policy point of view, Britain's role as a world class destination for international students is a highly significant element of our soft power offer. It's an issue that's consistently raised with me by our foreign counterparts." Universities and businesses have long argued that it is economically harmful to limit student numbers. But David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, refused to relent. 

Appearing before the Treasury select committee yesterday, Hammond reignited the issue. "As we approach the challenge of getting net migration figures down, it is in my view essential that we look at how we do this in a way that protects the vital interests of our economy," he said. He added that "It's not whether politicians think one thing or another, it's what the public believe and I think it would be useful to explore that quesrtion." A YouGov poll published earlier this year found that 57 per cent of the public support excluding students from the "tens of thousands" target.

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has also pressured May to do so. But the Prime Minister not only rejected the proposal - she demanded a stricter regime. Rudd later announced in her conference speech that there would be "tougher rules for students on lower quality courses". 

The economic case for reform is that students aid growth. The political case is that it would make the net migration target (which has been missed for six years) easier to meet (long-term immigration for study was 164,000 in the most recent period). But in May's view, excluding students from the target would be regarded by the public as a "fix" and would harm the drive to reduce numbers. If an exemption is made for one group, others will inevitably demand similar treatment. 

Universities complain that their lobbying power has been reduced by the decision to transfer ministerial responsibility from the business department to education. Bill Rammell, the former higher education minister and the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire, said in July: “We shouldn’t assume that Theresa May as prime minister will have the same restrictive view on overseas students that Theresa May the home secretary had”. Some Tory MPs hoped that the net migration target would be abolished altogether in a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

But rather than retreating, May has doubled-down. The Prime Minister regards permanently reduced migration as essential to her vision of a more ordered society. She believes the economic benefits of high immigration are both too negligible and too narrow. 

Her ambition is a forbidding one. Net migration has not been in the "tens of thousands" since 1997: when the EU had just 15 member states and the term "BRICS" had not even been coined. But as prime minister, May is determined to achieve what she could not as home secretary. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.