Grumble Thread

[Dave2002]

Correct, in that it all goes into the general government coffers. The Treasury then allocates a sum to the DfT and a grant to local councils to be spent on whatever road/transport measures each is responsible for. Theoretically, it could, I suppose, amount to more than has been received from VED. But possibly unlikely?

I really don't know. The suggestion from some driving organisations is that a very significant amount of funds allocated nominally to transport actually goes to other areas - so claiming that such taxation is a form of cash cow use to fund other ventures. However £7bn doesn't seem like a huge cash cow, amounting to the order of £100 for every UK resident, so hardly likely to be sufficient to fund major areas - such as the NHS, defence, education etc.

Is that £7bn figure an estimate of the total loss if every [private?] vehicle in the UK were replaced by an EV with a £0 income from each to the Treasury? So is that approximately the total tax revenue from vehicle taxation at the current time? That doesn't seem enough to fund even pot hole filling, let alone major road infrastructure projects.

[oddoneout]

I really don't know. The suggestion from some driving organisations is that a very significant amount of funds allocated nominally to transport actually goes to other areas - so claiming that such taxation is a form of cash cow use to fund other ventures. However £7bn doesn't seem like a huge cash cow, amounting to the order of £100 for every UK resident, so hardly likely to be sufficient to fund major areas - such as the NHS, defence, education etc.

Is that £7bn figure an estimate of the total loss if every [private?] vehicle in the UK were replaced by an EV with a £0 income from each to the Treasury? So is that approximately the total tax revenue from vehicle taxation at the current time? That doesn't seem enough to fund even pot hole filling, let alone major road infrastructure projects.

More detail from Wiki
In 1920, an excise duty was introduced that specifically applied to motor vehicles; initially it was hypothecated (ring-fenced or earmarked) for road construction and paid directly into a special Road Fund. After 1937, this reservation of vehicle revenue for roads was ended, and instead the revenue was paid into the Consolidated Fund – the general pot of money held by government. Since then, maintenance of the UK road network has been funded out of general taxation, of which VED is a part.

As regards pothole repair is this yet another casualty of defunding local councils, so the grants being handed out now are not intended to reflect the ongoing aspect of road maintenance, which is supposed to be already covered, but a sticking plaster for a preventable situation? In which case the amount of the VED fund in relation to need isn't that relevant - councils will just get what they are given.

[french frank]

Is that £7bn figure an estimate of the total loss if every [private?] vehicle in the UK were replaced by an EV with a £0 income from each to the Treasury? So is that approximately the total tax revenue from vehicle taxation at the current time? That doesn't seem enough to fund even pot hole filling, let alone major road infrastructure projects.

If I remember it was an OBR estimate of how much is currently produced by VED, so takes account that there are more EVs on the road - and perhaps estimates by how much revenue is set to decrease (unless the cost of the duty increases, of course).

Update: the forecast is £8.2bn for year 2024-25. Wiki says:

"After 1937, this reservation of vehicle revenue for roads was ended, and instead the revenue was paid into the Consolidated Fund – the general pot of money held by government. Since then, maintenance of the UK road network has been funded out of general taxation, of which VED is a part."

[teamsaint]

I really don't know. The suggestion from some driving organisations is that a very significant amount of funds allocated nominally to transport actually goes to other areas - so claiming that such taxation is a form of cash cow use to fund other ventures. However £7bn doesn't seem like a huge cash cow, amounting to the order of £100 for every UK resident, so hardly likely to be sufficient to fund major areas - such as the NHS, defence, education etc.

Is that £7bn figure an estimate of the total loss if every [private?] vehicle in the UK were replaced by an EV with a £0 income from each to the Treasury? So is that approximately the total tax revenue from vehicle taxation at the current time? That doesn't seem enough to fund even pot hole filling, let alone major road infrastructure projects.

£7 Bn may indeed not be a huge cash cow Dave, given the levels of funding needed for the NHS etc, but it may be a matter of perspective . The govt has seen fit to cause enormous division and controversy for an estimated £5bn of savings ( estimated on an OBR projection which doesn’t seem to have been questioned by anybody much, or indeed put into context as it might) in a very sensitive area.
The govt seems determined to attack benefits, and motorists, EV or otherwise, should be aware that their turn may not be far away.

And while we are on grumbles, the Water bills increases are truly disgraceful.

[Pulcinella]

£7 Bn may indeed not be a huge cash cow Dave, given the levels of funding needed for the NHS etc, but it may be a matter of perspective . The govt has seen fit to cause enormous division and controversy for an estimated £5bn of savings ( estimated on an OBR projection which doesn’t seem to have been questioned by anybody much, or indeed put into context as it might) in a very sensitive area.
The govt seems determined to attack benefits, and motorists, EV or otherwise, should be aware that their turn may not be far away.

And while we are on grumbles, the Water bills increases are truly disgraceful.

While I certainly think the water bill INCREASES (to cover their appalling mistreatment/spillages/leakages, etc) are disgraceful, I'm always amazed at how little we actually pay for our water.
Ours works out at significantly less than £1 per day (about £230–£240 pa); set that against a cup of coffee out in town.
Of course it would help if all new houses didn't need drinking-quality water to flush the loo and wash the dirty laundry!

[Dave2002]

£7 Bn may indeed not be a huge cash cow Dave, given the levels of funding needed for the NHS etc, but it may be a matter of perspective . The govt has seen fit to cause enormous division and controversy for an estimated £5bn of savings ( estimated on an OBR projection which doesn’t seem to have been questioned by anybody much, or indeed put into context as it might) in a very sensitive area.
The govt seems determined to attack benefits, and motorists, EV or otherwise, should be aware that their turn may not be far away.

There are difficulties with just about all aspects of trying to get a reasonable budget and sensible taxation. It seems to go with the territory - politicians are happy to announce cuts and benefits before elections - which likely add up to three times the amounts which are actually possible. They have to do that to get elected, because the electorate are collectively too stupid to vote for anyone who bases their intentions on real data.

After the elections - parties and politicians then think "Ooops - this isn't deliverable!" and have to do more shenanigans to try to massage the finances and other social policies into something which doesn't cause riots.

Some politicians are perhaps not very clever, and don't think this through, and others may be clever enough - and try to work the mess out in ways which more or less make sense - and then on top there is a matter of "honesty".
Some - perhaps most - politicians probably try to be honest at the start, until things start to go belly up. Some may have been less than fully honest before election in order to achieve their victory at the polls.

One of the biggest problems right now seems to be social care - particularly - but not exclusively - for older people. Social care requires properly trained and caring people who are well organised to run it. Governments may see it as an opportunity to divert unemployed people with completely the wrong kind of skills into the sector, or to provide employment for people who would otherwise not have jobs - purely to massage the employment figures, and get a "service" which looks cheap on the balance sheets.

[Dave2002]

Of course it would help if all new houses didn't need drinking-quality water to flush the loo and wash the dirty laundry!

Is it really a lot more expensive to have ubiquitous drinking quality water - at least for domestic household uses?

I'm sure it is more expensive in some ways, but having separate lower quality water supplies is likely to cause other problems - such as requiring more pipework, and then there would be issues of cross contamination.
Rain water collected off roofs could be good for irrigation - and farming - and indeed in some countries so-called "grey water" is used for some purposes.

I really don't know whether having high quality water which is safe to drink for everyday use is a good or a bad thing - over all. Maybe the costs are the least of the problems.

Some sources of water - such as stagnant pools - are not suitable, and of course we see examples in heating systems with water tanks which now have to be equipped with methods to reduce the risks from Legionnaire's disease, so collecting water and storing it for a long time - maybe for use for applications like car washing etc., may bring its own hazards.

[teamsaint]

While I certainly think the water bill INCREASES (to cover their appalling mistreatment/spillages/leakages, etc) are disgraceful, I'm always amazed at how little we actually pay for our water.
Ours works out at significantly less than £1 per day (about £230–£240 pa); set that against a cup of coffee out in town.
Of course it would help if all new houses didn't need drinking-quality water to flush the loo and wash the dirty laundry!

Our water bill ( unmetered) 2025/2026 has increased from £650 to £738, and waste water from £421 to £656.The latter is an absolute scandal, not least given the woeful service being delivered.

The price of living in a ( bottom of) band E mansion I suppose.

Good point about new houses.

[Pulcinella]

Is it really a lot more expensive to have ubiquitous drinking quality water - at least for domestic household uses?

I'm sure it is more expensive in some ways, but having separate lower quality water supplies is likely to cause other problems - such as requiring more pipework, and then there would be issues of cross contamination.
Rain water collected off roofs could be good for irrigation - and farming - and indeed in some countries so-called "grey water" is used for some purposes.

I really don't know whether having high quality water which is safe to drink for everyday use is a good or a bad thing - over all.

True: given the fact that in our new house the switch in the kitchen labelled Washing Machine actually isolated the Dishwasher (and vice versa) wouldn't give much confidence!

[LMcD]

£7 Bn may indeed not be a huge cash cow Dave, given the levels of funding needed for the NHS etc, but it may be a matter of perspective . The govt has seen fit to cause enormous division and controversy for an estimated £5bn of savings ( estimated on an OBR projection which doesn’t seem to have been questioned by anybody much, or indeed put into context as it might) in a very sensitive area.
The govt seems determined to attack benefits, and motorists, EV or otherwise, should be aware that their turn may not be far away.

And while we are on grumbles, the Water bills increases are truly disgraceful.

A friend of mine from up the road had his monthly charge increased from £29 to £44. A quick telephone call resulted in a mumbled acceptance that the correct revised figure was £32.
I'm currently paying £11 a month, and await my next communication from Anglian Water with interest.

[french frank]

A friend of mine from up the road had his monthly charge increased from £29 to £44. A quick telephone call resulted in a mumbled acceptance that the correct revised figure was £32.
I'm currently paying £11 a month, and await my next communication from Anglian Water with interest.

Just consulted my artificial friend: Privatization Goals: The Conservative government, under Margaret Thatcher, believed that privatization would lead to increased efficiency, improved water quality, and potentially lower bills

Could I please get my water from, no, not from Thames perhaps but from the next cheapest, Severn Trent, rather than the second most expensive, Wessex ?

[LMcD]

The Conservative government, under Margaret Thatcher, believed that privatization would lead to increased efficiency, improved water quality, and potentially lower bills

The recent two-part BBC2 documentary on Thames Water included a clip of Michael Howard saying he couldn't think of any disadvantages that would result from the privatization of the water industry.
Although it serves the driest region of the UK, Anglian Water's bills are by no means the most expensive.

[Serial_Apologist]

There are difficulties with just about all aspects of trying to get a reasonable budget and sensible taxation. It seems to go with the territory - politicians are happy to announce cuts and benefits before elections - which likely add up to three times the amounts which are actually possible. They have to do that to get elected, because the electorate are collectively too stupid to vote for anyone who bases their intentions on real data.

After the elections - parties and politicians then think "Ooops - this isn't deliverable!" and have to do more shenanigans to try to massage the finances and other social policies into something which doesn't cause riots.

Given all the imponderables that make capitalism such a nice vehicle for those that have plenty to gamble away all our futures on, what would "real data" consist of?

[Cockney Sparrow]

I'm sure I read, in the EYE, some time ago, that in order to make the privatisation of the water companies "a goer" the government brought about, late in the process and little noticed, a derogation in required standards - EU I think - which "unfortunately" (a much deployed word, often disingenuously) was a derogation never brought to an end (but probably in the course of time overtaken by other regulations).
And there was certainly a Guardian item as to the sale of all the options or actual ownership on land for planned new reservoirs. Then add all the financial "engineering" with dividend plundering and debt loading. Enough to discredit capitalism........ I think privatisation already has been (how close the electricity distribution system has run to failures has been a constant feature of the column in the Eye over the years.)

[smittims]

I thought water privatisation a terrible deception. The shares were sold to the public at unrealistically low price so they would sell them to the big furture owners at a profit. A colleague of mine thought it wonderfful . 'Everyone wins' he said. I tried to tell him he was buying something he already owned and then losing it to sharpers who would make him pay more and more for water in future.

It may sound absurd to think of Britain as a water-poor country considering our rainfall , but when you compare the number of new houses being built with the number of reservoirs constructed in the last 50 years, I think we're heading for a crisis.