Fuel duty rises: budget small print

[Geek]

Big problem with EVs is the devastation of seabeds and kids digging for chems which is way wrong, when the salt alloy batteries hit the market then things will change big time, clean reusable 3 mins to 80% charge and 6 mins to full charge and a 900 mile range plus 30 year life span we are then on a winner.

If some wonderful technology was to be made available that allowed an EV to recharge in six minutes, to get a 900 mile range, that has interesting infrastructure requirements.
Assume 3 miles per KWh, that means 300KWh in a charge.

Delivering that in one tenth of an hour means a rate of 3 megawatts. That is a lot! A rapid charger is about 0.02 megawatt.

Typically, the national grid runs at about 30 to 40 gigawatts. So five thousand cars recharging at the same time would be half of the entire output of the national grid.

But I have no idea how many EVs will be on the road then. Can anyone guess?

 

[maingate]

Yes more LIES by politicians.

Several, including the PM have stood up and told us the only way to bring electricity prices down is to build more wind farms.

The latest Price cap change is now putting gas DOWN (because wholesale prices have reduced) and putting electricity UP because of the added costs to connect all these new wind farms,. Martin Lewis detailed it very well in one of his recent emails.

So we are being TOLD more wind farms = cheaper electricity, and the reality is it means more expensive electricity. That by any definition is a LIE.

Then the 2 main parties wonder why people have lost trust in them and want something completely different.

You left out the bit that stated 'Standing charges' have increased. The Governments motto seems to be, "You gotta pick a pocket or two"

 

[maingate]

Two examples from yesterday alone - 1: A BBC presenter directly saying that the leader of a political party 'has a relationship with Hitler', and 2: The way Question Time was conducted last night, let's leave it at that.

Absolutely outrageous, they manipulate all the time but always get found out. There is a lot of online discussion about their actions.

 

[Geek]

You left out the bit that stated 'Standing charges' have increased. The Governments motto seems to be, "You gotta pick a pocket or two"

The electricity pricing scheme is a scam invented by an Enron boss.
The price of all power is charged at the rate of the most expensive source at the time.
AFAIK, that applies nowhere else in the world, and to no other commodity.
The problem isn't in the government, for once. It's in the system.

 

[trevskoda]

If some wonderful technology was to be made available that allowed an EV to recharge in six minutes, to get a 900 mile range, that has interesting infrastructure requirements.
Assume 3 miles per KWh, that means 300KWh in a charge.

Delivering that in one tenth of an hour means a rate of 3 megawatts. That is a lot! A rapid charger is about 0.02 megawatt.

Typically, the national grid runs at about 30 to 40 gigawatts. So five thousand cars recharging at the same time would be half of the entire output of the national grid.

But I have no idea how many EVs will be on the road then. Can anyone guess?

Hence what i have said, cables and power wont be available in the near future as in next ten years or more, whats going to happen in 2030 when at least one qtr of the nation buy there new car, well looks like we will be back to parafin lamps at home.

 

[runnach]

Love it.

Purely banter with the image, while the beeb will and have, got news reporting wrong, or twisted it, they aint that bad IMO.

 

[colinm]

Absolutely outrageous, they manipulate all the time but always get found out. There is a lot of online discussion about their actions.

I watched part of it, they had the absolute audacity to allow all sides of the arguement.

 

[barryd]

Two examples from yesterday alone - 1: A BBC presenter directly saying that the leader of a political party 'has a relationship with Hitler', and 2: The way Question Time was conducted last night, let's leave it at that.

But hey, I'm done with this - I actually joined this forum for the app and for some banter around vanlife, not for heated political debate. You're either clued in or you're not about the media so let's agree to disagree or I'll probably say something I more than likely won't regret.

Yet you throw yourself in with outrageous comments about the BBC and then insult one of our long standing members (not me) and don't like it when you more than meet your match. You have shown nothing to back up your claim and nor have you offered up an alternative platform that you trust where you get your news from. Your parting comment sounds like a threat. Anger issues perhaps?

 

[Geek]

Hence what i have said, cables and power wont be available in the near future as in next ten years or more, whats going to happen in 2030 when at least one qtr of the nation buy there new car, well looks like we will be back to parafin lamps at home.

Come 2030 and only EVs are available new, unless there have been a few breakthroughs, the value of secondhand ICE cars will go up a lot.

 

[trevskoda]

Come 2030 and only EVs are available new, unless there have been a few breakthroughs, the value of secondhand ICE cars will go up a lot.

The value of used petrol/diesel cars will go up i suspect as many dont like auto box no clutch or gears type cars for racing round our twisty roads, esp the young folk.
What will happen is the gov will put a high rd tax on ice cars each year.

 

[maingate]

Yet you throw yourself in with outrageous comments about the BBC and then insult one of our long standing members (not me) and don't like it when you more than meet your match. You have shown nothing to back up your claim and nor have you offered up an alternative platform that you trust where you get your news from. Your parting comment sounds like a threat. Anger issues perhaps?

You are the one getting angry because someone has a different viewpoint. Maybe I can back up his claim. Which TV news channel has the highest number of viewers? Why is Sky News on the verge of bankruptcy and may only be an online channel soon. Why has ITV been sold at a knockdown price to an American media conglomerate? Why are there fewer and fewer ads on ITV, Ch 4 and 5? Why have the BBC made it impossible to cancel the TV licence directly online? Could it be that they have read their audience wrong perchance?

 

[trevskoda]

You are the one getting angry because someone has a different viewpoint. Maybe I can back up his claim. Which TV news channel has the highest number of viewers? Why is Sky News on the verge of bankruptcy and may only be an online channel soon. Why has ITV been sold at a knockdown price to an American media conglomerate? Why are there fewer and fewer ads on ITV, Ch 4 and 5? Why have the BBC made it impossible to cancel the TV licence directly online? Could it be that they have read their audience wrong perchance?

What there is 5 chanels now.

 

[barryd]

You are the one getting angry because someone has a different viewpoint. Maybe I can back up his claim. Which TV news channel has the highest number of viewers? Why is Sky News on the verge of bankruptcy and may only be an online channel soon. Why has ITV been sold at a knockdown price to an American media conglomerate? Why are there fewer and fewer ads on ITV, Ch 4 and 5? Why have the BBC made it impossible to cancel the TV licence directly online? Could it be that they have read their audience wrong perchance?

I’m not angry at all. I’m just asking for our new member and now you it seems to back up your claims with evidence rather than slogans. None of the things you’ve listed prove the BBC is ‘unreliable’ or ‘biased.’ They mostly just show that the TV industry is changing.

You are of course referring to GB News which frankly is laughable. Viewing figures don’t determine accuracy or impartiality.
GB News could have ten million viewers and it would still be an openly partisan channel because it says it’s partisan. Popularity does not prove reliability. If you want to get your news from an echo chamber that supports your viewpoint then thats up to you.

Sky’s finances, ITV being sold, or ad revenue dropping aren’t evidence of BBC bias. They’re symptoms of streaming taking over, declining broadcast advertising, and long-term market shifts.

The licence fee cancellation process is a completely separate administrative issue and also not evidence of editorial bias.

None of this answers the original claim made of course that the BBC is ‘unreliable.’ If you want to actually demonstrate bias or unreliability, you’d need to point to specific BBC stories that were factually wrong and have not been corrected. So far, you and him haven’t done that.

 

[Sydwal]

Yet you throw yourself in with outrageous comments about the BBC and then insult one of our long standing members (not me) and don't like it when you more than meet your match. You have shown nothing to back up your claim and nor have you offered up an alternative platform that you trust where you get your news from. Your parting comment sounds like a threat. Anger issues perhaps?

This is getting tiresome now. I'm not angry at all, I'm perplexed to be honest. It's not clear how it's 'outrageous' to criticise the BBC. What a strange word to use. Like millions of others I no longer have a TV licence and there's a reason for that. I used to come home from work and hang on every word of the presenters on the 6 O'clock News, but the BBC stopped being credible a long time ago and it's only now many are catching on. Check the data. Sadly, many are still indoctrinated and put their faith in a British institution that has rapidly declined. I suspect the next government will oversee big changes.

I'm also not sure who I 'insulted'? How did I 'meet my match'? This is all very silly. Whilst perplexing I also find it risible that some people are offended by criticism of the BBC. I bet they're offended by pointing out failings in the NHS too, even though that stopped being fit for purpose decades ago.

My final plea was to agree to disagree, nothing more. I'm not sure why I'm obliged to 'offer up an alternative' to the BBC either. It's an opinion that the BBC is biased and unreliable that is based on my experience and observation that's all - although recent well documented controversies support that view.

I say again, I joined for the app and for friendly banter around vanlife. It remains to be seen if I'll find that here - and after a promising start too. Shame, really.

 

[barryd]

This is getting tiresome now. I'm not angry at all, I'm perplexed to be honest. It's not clear how it's 'outrageous' to criticise the BBC. What a strange word to use. Like millions of others I no longer have a TV licence and there's a reason for that. I used to come home from work and hang on every word of the presenters on the 6 O'clock News, but the BBC stopped being credible a long time ago and it's only now many are catching on. Check the data. Sadly, many are still indoctrinated and put their faith in a British institution that has rapidly declined. I suspect the next government will oversee big changes.

I'm also not sure who I 'insulted'? How did I 'meet my match'? This is all very silly. Whilst perplexing I also find it risible that some people are offended by criticism of the BBC. I bet they're offended by pointing out failings in the NHS too, even though that stopped being fit for purpose decades ago.

My final plea was to agree to disagree, nothing more. I'm not sure why I'm obliged to 'offer up an alternative' to the BBC either. It's an opinion that the BBC is biased and unreliable that is based on my experience and observation, nothing more. Recent well documented controversies support that view.

I say again, I joined for the app and for friendly banter around vanlife. It remains to be seen if I'll find that here - and after a promising start too. Shame, really.

Well you did say you might say something you would regret so it sounds like anger to me. Your comment on page four and I quote "Any BBC source is not to be trusted. Full stop." was what sparked the debate and my response. A trolling comment if I ever I saw one. Personally yes I find that a ridiculous and "outrageous" thing to say when the global evidence says the exact opposite. You and Maingate above have shown nothing to back your claims up or show any credible alternatives that you would deem "reliable" sources apart from in Maingates case GB News but even he is to shy to actually put up the name. You are not obliged to offer up anything of course but if you are going to toss in trolling posts such as that one perhaps you need to consider not making them in the first place if you don't want challenging.

The banter is indeed great on here which is why politics is banned. I fear we have broken that rule so perhaps we should leave it there.

 

[Sydwal]

Or maybe not. I don't like bullies - every forum has them - you asked me to cite some examples, so here goes.

Here's a few that stand out - most of which the BBC either acknowledge or have faced censure:

• Edited Donald Trump Speech - Just a few weeks ago, deliberately editing a speech to give a wrong and inaccurate impression. TWICE.
• Referring to Farage as 'having a relationship with Adolf Hitler' on the Today program just 2 days ago.
• Misquoting a BMA Chair: In December 2025, the BBC apologised for misquoting the British Medical Association chair, Tom Dolphin, re Doctors' strikes.
• Historical Inaccuracy: In May 2025, a correspondent incorrectly claimed Germany used gas chambers during the Herero and Namaqua genocide in early 20th-century Namibia. The BBC apologised for the error, clarifying concentration camps were used, but not gas chambers.
• Highlighting Reform Officials losing the whip at a rate 5 times higher than for other parties, despite that happening six times as much in those parties.
• Israel-Gaza Coverage: The BBC has faced intense criticism over its coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. An internal memo and external reports alleged a "systemic bias" in BBC Arabic's coverage, including the use of contributors with alleged antisemitic views and a tendency to minimize Israeli suffering.
• Jeremy Bowen & The 'Flattened Gaza Hospital': The veteran BBC journalist reported: "The explosion destroyed Al-Ahli Hospital. It was already damaged from a smaller attack at the weekend. The building was flattened.” In fact the car park was destroyed and the missile was fired by Hamas - another omission. He later admitted his coverage of the bombing of a Gaza hospital was inaccurate but said that he "doesn't regret one thing" about his reporting. Astonishing.
• Transgender Issues: Has repeatedly publicised the 'plight' of trans teenagers after the use of puberty blockers was banned.
• Br3xit - Remainer guests on QT and other shows far outnumbered Brexiteers. This is a proven fact.
• Jan 6th Congressional Hearings: When the hearing was ongoing the BBC repeatedly pointed out that the panel that heavily criticised Trump had Republican members. Not once did they mention that Adam Kinsinger and Liz Chaney were avowed opponents of him and always had been, nor the fact that perceived Trump friendly Republicans were deliberately not allowed on said committee.

What was that about meeting one's match again?

NOW PLEASE - CAN WE TALK ABOUT VANLIFE?

 

[colinm]

2: The way Question Time was conducted last night, let's leave it at that.

No lets not leave it at that, prior to the program all the panel where told that there would be people who had been through the asylum system in the audience, and yes they where there and asked to explain themselves. They where legitimate people to be there, just the same as the others who criticized the governments failure to control illegal boat crossings. What do you want to hear, one side of the story? FYI the person I probably agreed with most in his views on illegal immigration was Zia Yusuf, but his whinging afterwards did him no favours in my book.

 

[Sydwal]

No lets not leave it at that, prior to the program all the panel where told that there would be people who had been through the asylum system in the audience, and yes they where there and asked to explain themselves. They where legitimate people to be there, just the same as the others who criticized the governments failure to control illegal boat crossings. What do you want to hear, one side of the story? FYI the person I probably agreed with most in his views on illegal immigration was Zia Yusuf, but his whinging afterwards did him no favours in my book.

Ok

 

[maingate]

Back to fuel duty on cars.

I saw a report that Hybrid car drivers will get hit twice. Once for Road Fund Licence and now for pay per mile. I cannot see that being true but do any Hybrid owners know better?

 

[colinm]

Back to fuel duty on cars.

I saw a report that Hybrid car drivers will get hit twice. Once for Road Fund Licence and now for pay per mile. I cannot see that being true but do any Hybrid owners know better?

The 'Road Fund Licnce' applies to all cars, but that's not what 'pay per mile' is about, it's all about replacing 'fuel duty', ICE and HEV pay 'fuel duty' on the petrol/diesel they use, BEV's will pay 3p/mile, PHEV will pay fuel duty and 1.5p/mile. This means for PHEV you could pay less if keeping within the battery range, or more on long journey's.