Talk:Fuel protests in the United Kingdom

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article naming

I believe the group is called the "People's Fuel Lobby" (PFL). Should we therefore move this to People's Fuel Lobby? I wouldn't think it deserves a separate article, but that is another option. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary linking of years.

Just asking, why is the repeated linking of the same year everytime it appears in the article necessary? It's the same link from the same text each time and I believe that is against the Wikipedia style guide. Just curious as to the reason they need to stay in. Not meaning this as a dig, if there is a valid reason I just wish to know why. Ben W Bell 17:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the dates to appear according to everybodies preference settings every part of the date needs to be linked. Without linking the year those people that prefer "2005 September 10" or "2005-09-10" will not be able to see the date correctly. violet/riga (t) 17:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I stand corrected. Carry on. Ben W Bell 20:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a solution whereby they don't need to be linked, but for now we have to put up with it. violet/riga (t) 20:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different Protests

Should the articles be split into UK fuel protest (2000) and UK fuel protest (2005). Granted, the latest one hasn't yet happened, but it has still had effects (panic buying).Smurrayinchester 17:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A really good article would cover the whole arc of events from before the first major protest until know. Let's add some content, re-organise a bit and see if we need to split apart. Pcb21| Pete 20:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the 2005 protests have only been a rather minor event. Other smaller protests occur from time to time. The 2000 protest was more serious so should be the main subject of the article. 2005 just needs to be mentioned as an aside, it doesn't deserve a separate article. --JRawle 20:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The fuel protesters themselves have said that the protests have had no noticible success, apart from causing the general public to panic buy - which I think is not what they intended to do. --Film11 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Section - should it be deleted?

This section is poorly written (mixing past and present tenses for example) and refers to a very limited number of actions by a few people. If this is to be referred to at all maybe it could be a note in a section called 'Other Protests' or some such, but given its extent I don't think it adds to the article (which is pretty poor overall even without it). I would argue for deletion. ~~Hughwill 12:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14th September??

A report published by the Department for Transport said that at the protest's peak, 14th September, motorway traffic was 40% below normal levels and non-motorway traffic 25% below.

It's the 13th today. Either this a projection, in which case the verb tenses need to change, or its a mistake. --Diderot 18:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That article refers to the 2000 fuel protest :-) -- Last Malthusian 19:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking key areas

What's the deal with lorries blocking traffic in Europe? Can't they get quickly towed, confiscated, or pushed out of the way due to overriding public safety issues? This seems to get glossed over every time I hear about fuel protests -- it sounds like they just sit there until the driver decides it's ok to move. -Timvasquez 20:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the roads, they mount a "go slow" protest, driving very slowly to hold up the traffic. As most roads don't have minimum speed limits, this isn't illegal. If they blocked the road with stationary vehicles, it could be dealt with as you suggest. The police have cautioned drivers for "inconsiderate driving" or other minor offences. In the 2005 protests, police arrested one of the organisers for driving a lorry in the inside lane of a two-lane motorway (although this isn't actually against the law, only on three-lane motorways, which is perhaps why he was "de-arrested" later in the day).

Blockading refineries is another matter. Obstructing the highway or preventing a company going about lawful business is an offence. In the 2000 protests, anyone actually blocking the oil refineries should in theory have been removed. In many cases, the tanker drivers simply refused to drive even though access to the refinery wasn't blocked - either because they were worried for their safety, or because they were sympathetic to the cause - some might also have considered it "crossing a picket line", although it wasn't legally a strike. The oil companies weren't exactly quick to ensure deliveries could take place either. Some people also suggested the police could have done more to enable deliveries. This could do with being discussed further in the article. --JRawle 20:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things that should be added to the 2000 section

It would be great if the following things could be added to the 2000 section by somebody who remembers the events better than I do:

Who was involved (lorry drivers, farmers, taxi drivers)
Background on similiar protests in Europe that inspired this one
Some supermarkets selling out of bread, milk etc. (can't recall if this was due to delivery lorries not being able to get fuel or fear of this causing panic buying - probably a bit of both)
- Yep, this needs to be there. I was working in a supermarket at the time and watched as people bought sixteen loaves of bread and forty-eight pints of milk... Kinitawowi 19:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Responses of garages (e.g. rationing and alleged price gouging)
Army involvement (can't remember if the government just threatened to send in the Army or if they actually did)
Political effects (Conservatives supported cuts in fuel duty and polled ahead of Labour for the first time in several years for a while)
Plans for the November protests (I seem to remember plans for things like deliberately causing electricity surges being mooted)
Public support (most people supported the protests initially but they lost support by November - why?)

The BBC News archive covers a lot of this for those keen to work on it. Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

split please!

This article needs to be split into UK fuel protests, 2000 and UK fuel protests, 2005. There isn't enough of an immediate link between the events to justify one united article. Context and (lack of) support for the protests in 2005 has been markedly different to those in 2000, as has impact on government policy - frankly it doesn't make sense from a historical perspective to lump the events so closely together. Both articles can mention the (limited) similarity to the events described in their partner article, the fact that the same groups instigated protests... and please, let's call them 'protests'. The media have always favoured the plural and it makes sense given the geographical and chronological spread of events. --81.154.236.221 17:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation

Shouldn't the article title be United Kingdom fuel protest rather than UK fuel protest? Thanks, 17:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuel escalator

This needs an article, written by someone more knowledgable than I (what it is, who devised it, why it existed, and its impact on fuel prices, public perception and these protests). Kinitawowi 19:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cost to use car versus cost to use bus/train.

In Sweden we too pay fairly high fuel tax. Which means our fuel prices are about the same as those in Britain. So I guess numbers from Sweden might be more or less true for Britain too, so here's some interesting facts from Sweden:

The fuel taxes + the car taxes etc do not cover the whole cost of maintaining roads etc. Instead the cost for roads etc has to be covered by other taxes like VAT on other goods and salary taxes etc. So vehicle owners/drivers actually get their transportation needs subventioned by all taxpayers. Now, tax payers that chose to ride by public transport (buses and trains etc) also usually get their ride partially subventioned by tax money. But note, the public transport users gets much less subvention and causes much less road wear and accidents (hospital care costs etc).

Would the public transport system get the same amount of tax money "per passenger kilometre" the bus passengers would get paid to get on the bus instead of having to pay for the ride...

The fact is that tax money from public transport users are used to subvention car owners, even if one takes into the consideration that car owners on average have a higher salary (and thus usually pay more tax) then public transport users.

--David Göthberg 17:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this may be true in Sweden it is not the case in the UK. The revenue raised by Fuel tax, the VAT levied upon this and VED are vastly more than than expended on the road network. The truth is motorists subsidise other areas of government spending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.139.93 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The role of trade unions

The role of trade unions in resolving the dispute is not mentioned in the article. Trade Unions held negotiations with tanker drivers, allowing them to air their views whilst pressure was applied for them to drive through the blockade at Grangemouth Refinery in Scotland - this happened at 11pm on Wednesday 13th of September. This increased pressure upon the protesters to cease, which they did at 5am on Thursday 14th of September.

Source: Robinson, N. (2003) 'Fuel Protests: Governing the Ungovernable?' Parliamentary Affairs 56(3) p.423-440 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickendippers (talk • contribs)

2008 Protests

Information on the protests that took place on May 27 2008 in London and in Southern Wales should also be posted on the page at this time. Aslo information on the Transaction group should also be posted please.

MOTORAL1987 21:20 May 27 2008

White Van Man

A significant media creation designed to influence public opinion in the propaganda war, especially in the Labour-supporting press, and commented upon by ministers, was the 'White Van Man', the cartoon-like description of a fuel protester. Re-using this construction, fuel protesters could be described as stupid and racist by government-supporting newspapers and elsewhere, such as The Guardian. The significance of this is that it meant a nominally socialist Government and its supporters were attacking working class people. I suppose to stick it in, we'd need quotes from the time. Cacadores (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuel protests in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516122556/http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk:80/2011budget_taxation_overview.pdf to http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_taxation_overview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]