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

Leon Neal/ Getty
Show Hide image

“Brexit is based on racism”: Who is protesting outside the Supreme Court and what are they fighting for?

Movement for Justice is challenging the racist potential of Brexit, as the government appeals the High Court's Article 50 decision.

Protestors from the campaign group Movement for Justice are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court for the second day running. They are against the government triggering Article 50 without asking MPs, and are protesting against the Brexit vote in general. They plan to remain outside the Supreme Court for the duration of the case, as the government appeals the recent High Court ruling in favour of Parliament.

Their banners call to "STOP the scapgoating of immigrants", to "Build the movement against austerity & FOR equality", and to "Stop Brexit Fight Racism".

The group led Saturday’s march at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre, where a crowd of over 2,000 people stood against the government’s immigration policy, and the management of the centre, which has long been under fire for claims of abuse against detainees.  

Movement for Justice, and its 50 campaigners, were in the company yesterday of people from all walks of pro and anti-Brexit life, including the hangers-on from former Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s postponed march on the Supreme Court.

Antonia Bright, one of the campaign’s lead figures, says: “It is in the interests of our fight for freedom of movement that the Supreme Court blocks May’s attempt to rush through an anti-immigrant deal.”

This sentiment is echoed by campaigners on both sides of the referendum, many of whom believe that Parliament should be involved.

Alongside refuting the royal prerogative, the group criticises the Brexit vote in general. Bright says:

“The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.”

A crucial concern for the group is that the terms of the agreement will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.

This concern isn’t entirely unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58 per cent spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41 per cent increase, compared with the same time the following year.

The subtext of Bright's statement is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a desicion of such momentous consequences. She also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.

This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. Bright insists that this, “is not a democratic process at all”.

“We want to positively say that there does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, not just a rushing through on the royal prerogative,” she adds. “There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.”

For campaigners, the use of royal prerogative is a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters, during the future Brexit negotiations. A ruling in the Supreme Court in favour of a parliamentary vote would present a small but important reassurance against these fears.