Panic buying

joshr96

I don't understand what the news are trying to say. They said this morning that it's best not to go out and buy any petrol. But, the whole scare is that people aren't going to be able to buy petrol...So wouldn't not buying it be stupid as you're inflicting what you are scared of happening upon yourself?

verylonglegs

Well it certainly has shown how easy the general masses can be manipulated. To my mind it makes any further whining about politcians redundant, the population of this country gets treated exactly as they deserve..too fooking stupid to think for themselves. Aargh, so annoyed for a friday night...need a beer!

morstar

rhext wrote:

I reckon the government got it right.

Currently people are facing a set of largely optional queues, the end result of which will be a nation full of cars well able to manage a day or two without refills.

Contrast that with the chaos likely to be caused by tanker driver strikes, when not only will the panic buying kick in big time, the forecourts will also no longer be getting topped up, and to me it seems like a sensible contingency measure.

Last time there was a scare, there were a couple of days of minor inconvenience, quickly lapsing into normality as people realised that once their tanks were full, they couldn't put any more in. The best response to a threatened tanker driver strike has to be to make sure that most people have their tanks nearly full as opposed to nearly empty.

If you were in Government how would you engineer that?

Can't agree that we have the outcome you portray. Whilst your outcome does exist in a lot of cases, what you also have is a lot of low mileage vehicles with unnecessarily full tanks and a lot of high mileage trips not being taken through fear of being caught without fuel.

AndyBeast

I filled up yesterday, as my car fuel light was on and I got the limited mileage warning so filled up as I usually do, i.e when the tank is empty. The stupidity around me made me rage slightly though as the pump I used was showing a previous fill of about £7.80 something, the chap in front of me put about £11 in his car and there was another person filling up a battered old jerry can in the boot of their car!!

slowondefy2

I need some petrol for my mower. There's no way I can fill up my can without looking like an idiot, is there?

Gizmodo

slowondefy2 wrote:

I need some petrol for my mower. There's no way I can fill up my can without looking like an idiot, is there?

No there isnt't, you need to ride your mower into the petrol station or face the consequences of timing.

markos1963

Pross wrote:

That said, this whole issue has raised one of my pet hates i.e. Unions trying to dress up a threatened strike to improve pay as an issue regarding safety and welfare. Whether the drivers earn a reasonable wage for their job I don't know (I wouldn't like the responsibility of towing around all that flammable material) but what exactly are the safety concerns they keep going on about? Surely it is just as dangerous if you are earning £50k as it would be if you are earning £30k?

This often the case now and it is often engineered by the management. We had a dispute with our employer a couple of years ago regarding the treatment of drivers and guards who had made minor mistakes. The management insisted that the talks over this issue were included in that years pay negotiations. Guess what? when the negotiations broke down over the bullying and we went to a ballot the management only told the media it was a dispute over pay!

Like us tanker drivers are paid a lot for what rarely happens, something going wrong. They used to have a months specific training to prepare for the role, now it's been condensed into a day!

Mad Roadie

Pross wrote:

I'm pretty sure they won't get their pay when they strike even when it follows the correct procedure. The 7 days just makes it legal so they won't all get banged up.

hardly the correct procedure - 7 days or not... only 40% voted to strike! so usual story, the 'membership' wound up by some bloody militant union leaders, who see it as their job to make the public suffer and cripple the economy which is struggling to pay their membership at all, never mind the head in the sand pensions

McBain_v1

Sick and tired of this crap!

Had to laugh when someone purporting to represent the hauliers was interviewed on Radio 4, ostensibly seeking to explain the drivers' grievances. After the interview the show was bombarded with people bemoaning the fact that they were still none the wiser. The official response from the hauliers union rep was even worse. If this lot cannot articulate their case to the point that the public can understand, they can't expect much sympathy.

I don't have to pay for the fuel I use (company fuel card) but seeing the way everyone flocked to the pumps at the slightest whiff of a strike was very dispiriting

markos1963

Mad Roadie wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm pretty sure they won't get their pay when they strike even when it follows the correct procedure. The 7 days just makes it legal so they won't all get banged up.

hardly the correct procedure - 7 days or not... only 40% voted to strike! so usual story, the 'membership' wound up by some bloody militant union leaders, who see it as their job to make the public suffer and cripple the economy which is struggling to pay their membership at all, never mind the head in the sand pensions

You can't strike with a 40% vote, what you are saying is only 40% of the total eligable to vote voted in favour( I think it was 69% in favour of the votes recieved) If we take your arguement and apply it to the General Election result then the Tories had best pack their bags and f&^k off back to Eaton.

Kenjaja1

It is Official - The need to panic about petrol availability is over!

So what should we worry about next? News is talking about secondary smoking and the resulting harm (e.g. cot deaths) I have no kids & do not smoke so I cannot get too worked up about that. Any suggestions? How about a proposal to make helmet wearing compulsory?

<Discretely retires to safety of underground bunker>

This whole petrol thing has been much ado about nothing!

tuktuk

With the olympics coming up surely if ever there is a time to strike that is it. Perfect time as the country wont cope and have major embarrasment if the strikers demands arent met.

My company is cashing in with modifications to Wembley stadium which are needed quickly for the olympics.

verylonglegs

markos1963 wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm pretty sure they won't get their pay when they strike even when it follows the correct procedure. The 7 days just makes it legal so they won't all get banged up.

hardly the correct procedure - 7 days or not... only 40% voted to strike! so usual story, the 'membership' wound up by some bloody militant union leaders, who see it as their job to make the public suffer and cripple the economy which is struggling to pay their membership at all, never mind the head in the sand pensions

You can't strike with a 40% vote, what you are saying is only 40% of the total eligable to vote voted in favour( I think it was 69% in favour of the votes recieved) If we take your arguement and apply it to the General Election result then the Tories had best pack their bags and f&^k off back to Eaton.

Not comparable imo, there are a lot more choices in a political vote than there are in a straight yes/no vote.

markos1963

verylonglegs wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm pretty sure they won't get their pay when they strike even when it follows the correct procedure. The 7 days just makes it legal so they won't all get banged up.

hardly the correct procedure - 7 days or not... only 40% voted to strike! so usual story, the 'membership' wound up by some bloody militant union leaders, who see it as their job to make the public suffer and cripple the economy which is struggling to pay their membership at all, never mind the head in the sand pensions

You can't strike with a 40% vote, what you are saying is only 40% of the total eligable to vote voted in favour( I think it was 69% in favour of the votes recieved) If we take your arguement and apply it to the General Election result then the Tories had best pack their bags and f&^k off back to Eaton.

Not comparable imo, there are a lot more choices in a political vote than there are in a straight yes/no vote.

Yes it is because the rest exercised their right not to express an opinion. Personally I think the Union leadership in this case will try to get a negotiated settlement as they don't have a firm enough majority to make a strike really bite. If the vote had been around 80% in favour with a high (90%) response then things might have got uglier.

Jez mon

markos1963 wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm pretty sure they won't get their pay when they strike even when it follows the correct procedure. The 7 days just makes it legal so they won't all get banged up.

hardly the correct procedure - 7 days or not... only 40% voted to strike! so usual story, the 'membership' wound up by some bloody militant union leaders, who see it as their job to make the public suffer and cripple the economy which is struggling to pay their membership at all, never mind the head in the sand pensions

You can't strike with a 40% vote, what you are saying is only 40% of the total eligable to vote voted in favour( I think it was 69% in favour of the votes recieved) If we take your arguement and apply it to the General Election result then the Tories had best pack their bags and f&^k off back to Eaton.

It does seem odd to me, that the union votes don't generally get a higher turnout. With a general election, I can see plenty of reasons, a general sense of apathy, a feeling that your vote doesn't matter at all anyway and ignorance.

When it comes to having a few extra days off work to try and get a pay rise (oh sorry, I mean, striking over safety concerns =p) you're far less likely to be ignorant or apathetic, so it comes down a feeling that your vote doesn't matter.

Well surely it does. Unions need to realise, that votes like this reflect quite badly on them and Unison in particular, needs to realise that as the biggest labour donor, its public image does start to matter. If the PR machine within the conservatives had got going and managed to pin this on the union, Milliblands position would be rather more uncomfortable.

MaxwellBygraves

Jez mon wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm pretty sure they won't get their pay when they strike even when it follows the correct procedure. The 7 days just makes it legal so they won't all get banged up.

hardly the correct procedure - 7 days or not... only 40% voted to strike! so usual story, the 'membership' wound up by some bloody militant union leaders, who see it as their job to make the public suffer and cripple the economy which is struggling to pay their membership at all, never mind the head in the sand pensions

You can't strike with a 40% vote, what you are saying is only 40% of the total eligable to vote voted in favour( I think it was 69% in favour of the votes recieved) If we take your arguement and apply it to the General Election result then the Tories had best pack their bags and f&^k off back to Eaton.

It does seem odd to me, that the union votes don't generally get a higher turnout. With a general election, I can see plenty of reasons, a general sense of apathy, a feeling that your vote doesn't matter at all anyway and ignorance.

When it comes to having a few extra days off work to try and get a pay rise (oh sorry, I mean, striking over safety concerns =p) you're far less likely to be ignorant or apathetic, so it comes down a feeling that your vote doesn't matter.

Well surely it does. Unions need to realise, that votes like this reflect quite badly on them and Unison in particular, needs to realise that as the biggest labour donor, its public image does start to matter. If the PR machine within the conservatives had got going and managed to pin this on the union, Milliblands position would be rather more uncomfortable.

Indeed. Instead of using outdated methods such as majority ballots to decide on strike action, it would be far more effective if they had a quick whip round to discuss the matter personally with the PM over dinner.

d87heaven

Just in case I ran out I was going to fill my pond up with fuel but its still full of coal.

morstar

Never mind. You'll be able to fit plenty of stamps in all the gaps between the coal.

nathancom

Clearly the Tories are trying to stoke up a class war - their 'Thatcher moment' against the coal miners. They believe that this will be seen as being tough by the electorate and will help them get re-elected despite their desperate mismanagement of almost all areas of government - the economy, NHS, education etc.

I don't get why 40% of people would vote Tory considering they frame policy to aid the richest in society, those who are in the 1%. I guess 40% of people aspire to being in the 1% or believe the 1% are somehow better than the rest of us.

That said, Ed Milliband is a useless twunt as well so hardly surprising that Labour is doing poorly. If he could show some backbone and principals and stop playing media games himself he might look electable.

markos1963

nathancom wrote:

That said, Ed Milliband is a useless twunt as well so hardly surprising that Labour is doing poorly. If he could show some backbone and principals and stop playing media games himself he might look electable.

As much as I believe in the Labour movement and Socialism I have to agree with this. Labour need to appeal to their core voters and get them to start actually voting again that way they won't have to rely on the 'squeezed middle'

Le Commentateur

It's not panic buying. It's logical good behavior in a selfish society that doesn't believe in the collective strength of the community. They subscribe to the bedrock of this Government's philosophy – that there's not enough to go round and everyone should fend for themselves.

rick_chasey

markos1963 wrote:

As much as I believe in the Labour movement and Socialism I have to agree with this. Labour need to appeal to their core voters and get them to start actually voting again that way they won't have to rely on the 'squeezed middle'

Why?

Core labour voters don't live in swing seats.

It makes no electoral sense to appeal to core labour voters.

markos1963

Rick Chasey wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

As much as I believe in the Labour movement and Socialism I have to agree with this. Labour need to appeal to their core voters and get them to start actually voting again that way they won't have to rely on the 'squeezed middle'

Why?

Core labour voters don't live in swing seats.

It makes no electoral sense to appeal to core labour voters.

Because they are going to start voting for fringe candidates like George Galloway re. Bradford West the 20th safest seat Labour had.

Jez mon

markos1963 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

As much as I believe in the Labour movement and Socialism I have to agree with this. Labour need to appeal to their core voters and get them to start actually voting again that way they won't have to rely on the 'squeezed middle'

Why?

Core labour voters don't live in swing seats.

It makes no electoral sense to appeal to core labour voters.

Because they are going to start voting for fringe candidates like George Galloway re. Bradford West the 20th safest seat Labour had.

In large enough numbers? Going back to the OP (on the By-election thread) Bradford west was historically a slightly dodgy seat for labour, and culturally, it is somewhat of an anomaly within the country. Ultimately, can anyone see labour winning a majority, with a first past the post system, by going for their "core" vote?

nathancom

They will be more electable if they set out a vision of how to govern the country, how to actively engage in a process of modernising our economy. With Milliband at the top they just seem scared of their own shadows, just saying what they think people want to hear, too frightened to make anything approaching a policy statement.

Social Democratic parties (such as Labour) can quickly lose huge numbers of votes to extremist parties in areas of economically disenfranchised voters during periods of upheaval. I am not sure any seat is or should be safe if Labour is just meaningless. So yep, they should go back to their core political beliefs, state intervention in key areas of the economy (possibly through a state development bank), concentration on workers' rights and pay, and a determination to take people from welfare and into jobs. I am not sure New Labour did any of these things except the minimum wage and New Labour was a waste of 10 years too.

bagpusscp

When it comes down to it most voters in this country are conservative with a small "c"

.....heads for the nearest exit......

Jez mon

Or most political parties think they are and therefore, the political landscape is dominated on conservative ground. Or maybe most of those who live in the swing constituencies are conservative.

Fundamentally, there doesn't seem to be any distinct voices within the political landscape. Even under labour, we had (admittedly less dramatic) private sector encroaching of the NHS, in providing food, and private finance initiatives which seem to give the private sector a great deal, at the expense of the public sector. Nor did we see any great promotion of British manufacturing, which when the ruling party is meant to represent the interests of working people, seems unforgivable.

The next few years may well be interesting. Under Milliband Labour look unlikely to win an election, maybe he would have made for an acceptable leader in a different era, but I don't see him winning in such a media dominated age. He doesn't seem to have the right personality, and fundamentally, the media don't seem to like him enough.

Having said that, the Torys aren't popular, I think the petrol crisis shows, I think they're starting to get a bit twitchy, the economy isn't getting any better, the cuts are only just starting to be felt, and they're going to struggle to gain popularity before the next election.

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

As much as I believe in the Labour movement and Socialism I have to agree with this. Labour need to appeal to their core voters and get them to start actually voting again that way they won't have to rely on the 'squeezed middle'

Why?

Core labour voters don't live in swing seats.

It makes no electoral sense to appeal to core labour voters.

Yes it does. Between 97 and 05, Labour lost millions of working class voters. These people didn't start voting Tory, or anyone else, just stopped voting by and large. The drop in support from those in higher social categories and amongst professionals was quite small in comparison.

So whilst appealing to the 'squeezed middle' makes sense to win in key swing seats, I think that neither party can comfortably rely on it's traditional base. Perhaps Labour less so than the Tories (although UKIP should pose a real challenge for the right-wing vote). As Bradford West highlighted.

verylonglegs

nathancom wrote:

Clearly the Tories are trying to stoke up a class war - their 'Thatcher moment' against the coal miners. They believe that this will be seen as being tough by the electorate and will help them get re-elected despite their desperate mismanagement of almost all areas of government - the economy, NHS, education etc.

I don't get why 40% of people would vote Tory considering they frame policy to aid the richest in society, those who are in the 1%. I guess 40% of people aspire to being in the 1% or believe the 1% are somehow better than the rest of us.

That said, Ed Milliband is a useless twunt as well so hardly surprising that Labour is doing poorly. If he could show some backbone and principals and stop playing media games himself he might look electable.

Just being a property owner in the south-east will probably be enough to sway someone toward being in that 40%, I don't actually find it that surprising.

MaxwellBygraves

nathancom wrote:

I am not sure New Labour did any of these things except the minimum wage and New Labour was a waste of 10 years too.

I agree with what you say in your post, especially the above point. Triangulation hasn't worked - invariably the Tories 'out-Tory' anyone trying to be a bit Tory, if that makes sense.