FairFuelUK Budget 2023

Spring 2023 Hiking Fuel Duty Voters are turning away from MPs that continue to push an anti-driver agenda In a December 2022 FairFuelUK Opinion Poll, 38.7% of 28,000 drivers who voted Conservative in 2019, said they WILL NOT choose the Tory Party ever again End the War on Drivers Remember, they Vote 98% of everything we eat or use in our homes, offices, factories & in our daily lives are delivered using diesel, petrol and LPG fuelled vehicles 5 quick easy fiscal solutions that will not only reduce inflation and cut the cost of living but will keep previously loyal voters. The following economically effective popular common-sense strategies will win new support for the Political Party SMART enough to adopt them: 1. Cut fuel duty b , to stimulate reduce inflation, ig economy, increase consumer spending & generate new growth taxes 2. Introduce PumpWatch to make petrol & diesel pricing fair, honest & transparent 3. Scrap the 2030 un-consulted and needless ban on new petrol/diesel car sales 4. Stop the cash grabbing vitriolic myopic local authority warfare on 37m drivers 5. Recognise motorists are not just cash cows to be demonised by politicians & much of the media but instead, are the essential social & commercial heartbeat of our economy is Economic & Political Suicide Fuel DutyVAT on Duty LTNs Congestion Charge ULEZs VED Cycle Lanes 2030 Ban Net Zero E10 Unchecked Pump Pricing Diesel Pricing Expensive EVs 20mph Smart Motorways Speeding Parking IPT Road Charging Plans OBR The Greens Oil Prices Fuel Supply Chain Profiteering MOT Servicing Emissions Highway Code Potholes Road Conditions Speed Bumps Pump Prices Insurance Highest Taxed Road Safety Clueless Govt Edicts © FairFuelUK 15 Minute Cities Sadiq Khan Air Quality Fatality Lies BBC Bias Up to 2800 FairFuelUK Supporters are in Every UK Constituency Why would any Chancellor sanction a tax rise that would shrink the economy, increase inflation, and add more to the dole queue?......Page 3 The Political Party Supporting UK Drivers, Consumer and Small Business Tax Cuts will win the next General Election The 2030 diesel/petrol Ban will cost at least 5 times the alleged environmental benefits......Page 4 Implement PumpWatch ........Page 2 Cities under ULEZ, LTN martial law......page 5 - 6 Busting TfL’s 4000 Fatalities Lie...Page 6 Campaign groups, MPs & constituents’ comments..Page 7-8

Unchecked Rip Off Pump Prices WHY? Retail Diesel Wholesale Diesel Oct 2022 Feb 2023 Pence/Litre WHY? 9 Years of Increasing Profiteering When oil prices rise and fall, millions of drivers have absolutely no idea what subsequently, they will pay at the pumps each time they fill up their vehicles. It is never ever the same price! There is no consistency, logic or clarity to the way pump prices are calculated. The calculation remains a closely guarded secret in the fuel supply chain. The Fair Fuel APPG is supporting 37m UK Drivers and calls for the introduction of an Independent Pump Price Monitoring Body. PumpWatch. FairFuelUK's founder Howard Cox has documented pump pricing trends since 2010 and has tried to get to the bottom as to how petrol and diesel prices are reached. As stated it remains a secret process designed to maximise profits for businesses in the fuel supply chain. Over 95% of FairFuelUK's 1.7m supporters want an independent body created, similar to consumer watchdogs Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat, to protect UK's 37m drivers every time they fill up, and as and when oil prices fluctuate. Please note, the small independent retailers are not the businesses making extra profits, it is further up the fuel supply chain where the greed is most rife. See the cogent evidence in the graphs that show unchecked greed remains rife in the fuel supply chain. Data sourced from the widely respected RAC Foundation. FairFuelUK has detailed evidence from such data over the last 12 years. But significant profiteering has taken place much more so in the last 3 years during the Covid lockdowns and because of the Ukraine conflict. Record Profits The Big Oil Corporations must think we are all mugs. In a time of crippling energy and fuel costs, Shell and BP's latest profits are more than obscene. One driver exclaimed: “these figures are tantamount to being a criminal attack on everyone who drives, runs a business and is struggling to make budgetary ends meet.” Neither can anyone say these huge record returns are down to any brilliant business acumen, creative marketing, or launching new innovative products. No, it's simple to explain! This gargantuan level of dishonestly acquired income, is down to pure luck and a huge amount of gluttonous opportunism. In a long period of insecure energy supply and high prices, the unpredictable global energy and fuel market has delivered manna from heaven to these already fat cats to exploit. And by God they have taken advantageous big time, riding unchecked over UK's drivers who are undergoing the worst cost of living crisis in decades. More and more Tory backbench MPs are backing introducing PumpWatch and ensuring Fuel Duty remains frozen at current levels in the March Budget. More than 40 MPs have written to the Chancellor and the Business Minister demanding that PumpWatch be implemented as a matter of urgency too. Shell's record profits much of which were contributed from the recent year's higher petrol and diesel prices at our garage forecourts, should be subject to real scrutiny and maybe legislative control. The Government must act now and introduce FairFuelUK's well thought out pump pricing watchdog proposal. A long overdue consumer protection mechanism can check the big, branded oil corporations and their fuel supply chain continuing manipulation of pump prices.” Oil is down 50% since the Ukraine invasion. Yet Pump Prices, especially diesel, are still 10p-20p per litre artificially too high. Jonathan Gullis MP wrote in his letter, backed by many of his parliamentary colleagues, to both Jeremy Hunt and Grant Shapps: “Since 2010, FairFuelUK has been instrumental in influencing over twelve years of fuel duty freezes. They have successfully pushed for a Ip cut in 2011 and 5p cut in 2022. Their campaigning is widely respected by Members on both sides of the House, and their voice has scope and resonance across the media. Moreover, FairFuelUK is popular and is still growing, with support of an average of 2600 drivers per constituency. They continue to campaign for a significant cut in fuel duty in order to reduce inflation and stop perennial opportunistic profiteering in the fuel supply chain with their PumpWatch proposal. On December 6, 2022, The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that there is unacceptable profiteering in the fuel supply chain. A fact that millions of drivers have known for some time now.” A combination of PumpWatch and cutting Fuel Duty will accelerate a fall in inflation, generate jobs, business investment, increase GDP and stimulate consumer spending. Deep down a true Conservative knows this is the most immediate way to lessen the cost-of-living crisis and secure votes. But will this Government have the guts to make this happen? They will not regret doing so, when they see the opinion polls respond positively to such fiscal common sense. Stop the Opportunistic Fuel Supply Chain Profiteering and Introduce PumpWatch

Essential vehicle users, especially LGV and HGV drivers, have already been hit recently by closed roads, closed lanes, speed restrictions, increased traffic jams and increased charges and enforcement penalties as a result of recent government actions. The effects of a rise in fuel duty will be hitting sectors that already feel that they have faced an excessive increase in the burdens on them that result from government policy. The annual cost of a 23% rise in fuel duty to a van driver is is approaching £1000 With growth in the online sector, vans are critical to the economy. The increase in the burdens on van drivers, like those on other road users, has already started to impact on their willingness to service clients. If this continues a critical link in the service chain could break. The HGV sector is in a fragile situation. The average age of drivers is 55 with 13% over 60 and only 2% below 25. Profit margins are estimated at 1% only. The number of owner operators has been falling away. It is conceivable that a rise in duty could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back of this essential service. The annual cost of a 23% rise in fuel duty to an HGV user is approaching £7,000 Any rise in fuel duty would generate much less net revenue than OBR expects because of reduced usage, shifting to other areas of economic activity that are less highly taxed and because of losses of tax revenue from the negative impact on the economy. Despite the recent freeze and the 5p cut in fuel duty March, UK diesel taxes are the highest in any major European economy while UK petrol prices are amongst the highest. Cebr research for FairFuelUK has shown that the policy of freezing fuel duty, in place since 2011, has been highly successful, reducing the CPI by 6.7% compared with where it would have been by 2018 and boosting household expenditure by £24 billion. With a policy that has proved successful, it would be bizarre to change it. Following the OBR’s 23% rise in Fuel Duty post Autumn Statement bombshell, FairFuelUK commissioned the Cebr to assess the impact of the Chancellor’s planned 14.4p/litre levy rise on the already highest taxed drivers in the world. And made even more shocking, when Rishi Sunak, questioned by the Liaison Committee, refused to deny that this punitive tax hike would not be implemented in the March 2023 Budget. The Cebr report’s conclusions are more than damning: https://fairfueluk.com/OBR • The annual cost of a 23% rise in fuel duty to a van driver is approaching £1,000 • The annual cost of a 23% rise in fuel duty to an HGV user is approaching £7,000 • It would add 2.3% to Inflation • It would cut GDP by 1% • Poorest will be hit hardest Summary findings: A 23% rise in fuel duty would create economic damage, cutting GDP eventually by about 1% and reducing employment by about 31,000 jobs. It would add 2.3% to Inflation A rise in fuel duty would hit the poorest motorists most. Motorists in the poorest 10% of the population spend proportionately more than twice as much on fuel as the richer groups. Increasingly the use of road fuel in London is falling as car usage falls. As a result, a rise in fuel duty is very much a tax imposed by London on the regions. Londoners spend only about a third as much on fuel as the rest of the UK. The impact of any rise in fuel duty will be cumulative. Why would any Chancellor sanction a tax rise that would shrink the economy, increase inflation, and add more to the dole queue? The Chancellor cannot ignore that the OBR's planned 23% duty hike will add 2.3% to inflation, reduce GDP by 1% and cost 37,000 jobs. Freezing one of the world's already highest motoring fuel taxes whilst welcomed since 2011, the Treasury must go much further and reduce this regressive tax significantly to put more money into consumer spending and business investment. Inflation is slowly falling because of recent falling pump prices. So wake up please, smell the coffee and recognise Chancellor you could make a massive impact into lessening the cost-of-living-crisis in the stimulation of real economic growth by cutting fuel duty big. And guess what, if you do so, the Tory Party might be re-elected simply by implementing this popular and common sense fiscal strategy.” With a policy that has proved so successful, it would be bizarre to change it. Fuel Duty is a regressive tax and hits the poor hardest.

The 2030 Diesel/Petrol Ban will cost at least 5 times the alleged environmental benefits Key Findings in a Pioneering Cebr Economic Report Sanctioned by the FairFuelUK APPG for Motorists and Hauliers, & fully funded by The Alliance of British Drivers and The Motorcycle Action Group: • The environmental benefits from the proposed 2030 bans are dwarfed by the considerably additional costs. • Environmental benefits from the 2030 ban add-up to £76 billion. In contrast, the assessed costs add up to £400 billion. • These costs are FIVE times the benefits; even after using the government’s own valuations of the alleged unproven environmental benefits. • There is likely to be a loss of tax revenue of £5.8 billion per annum (£2.7 billion when discounted to 2022 base year terms), on average, in the scenario of a ban in comparison to a no-ban scenario, as fuel duty and VAT dwindle away. • From the perspective of the average household, these additional costs over the period 2022 to 2050 amount to £27,400 or just under £1,000 per household per year from 2022 until 2050. • Even the overall environmental benefits from the 2030 ban are rather lower than might be assumed since approximately 50% of any reductions in emissions from usage are likely to be offset by increased emissions in EV production. • Furthermore, this analysis does not take account of the likely increased emissions and other social costs from the massive increase in mining likely to be required by EVs. These extra emissions will be transnational in nature. Craig McKinlay MP, Chair of the FairFuelUK APPG and Net Zero Scrutiny Group says: "This in-depth study from the CEBR shows unequivocally that the costs of the proposed ban on petrol and diesel vehicles would be many times the benefits. Strikingly, even when using the Government's own methodology on carbon pricing, the study finds that the costs are a staggering five times the estimated benefits. Other reports show the CO2 savings of electric vehicles are limited, not to mention the reality of the limited supply of the elements required for batteries largely under Chinese control and the human misery associated with the mining process. No policy can be justified which has such an unbalanced ratio of costs to benefits, under a range of different assumptions. I really hope the Government will study these results carefully and abandon a policy that can only leave people worse off.” MP, Karl McCartney, Member of the Transport Select Committee, says: “Some of our overzealous colleagues in Parliament have devoutly followed the 2030/2050 ‘Net Zero’ mantra like lemmings. They should watch ‘The Big Reset’, it will blow their minds. This report very firmly puts them and the civil servants and ‘green’ lobby on notice that there is a vast and terrible economic cost, for both our Country and every individual who lives here, to achieve their unrealistic aims. I say unrealistic as some of us have been pilloried and castigated for speaking out, and pointing out their fallacies. Just one example: There are 35m + vehicles in the UK. They cannot be ‘removed’ nor replaced by expensive electric vehicles: there is not enough raw materials for the batteries required in the world, nor is there the power generation capacity available, nor is there the infrastructure to deliver such power requirements daily(nightly), or weekly, to the required number of individual vehicles, even if such power could be generated. There will still be ICE vehicles on land, sea and air, and maybe alternatives to fossil fuels might be a route to follow, with synthetic fuels maybe being a part of the solution of how we transport ourselves, foods, goods and materials around after 2930/2050. As a Country we need to support personal choice and vehicle autonomy: the vast majority of my constituents will never contemplate the economic lunacy of an electric vehicle. A new vehicle to them and their family is the equivalent of an average 8 yr old ICE Ford Mondeo. The self-appointed metropolitan elite need to extricate their heads and wake up to the detrimental costs to our nation’s people and economy of what they have been led to believe, and have given their tacit support too, and drive back to the reality checked side of the UK road.” Veteran Tory MP, Sir John Redwood says: "Banning new ICE vehicles will destroy jobs and investment in the UK . It says the UK is against the vehicle industry and personal transport choice. New electric cars produce a lot more CO2 in their manufacture and are usually dearer than ICE. We are short of battery manufacturing and lack easy access to materials needed for batteries." Labour MP, Graham Stringer says: “The assessed cost of the planned ban on petrol and diesel vehicles is a staggering £400 billion, over five times the expected benefits. It has been disappointing to see the Government push ahead with this damaging policy, showing very little sensitivity to the damage it is likely to do. The automotive industry is already struggling and this report paints a bleak picture of the likely impact of the ban. An alternative approach cannot come quickly enough.” Continued...

Howard Cox, Founder of the FairFuelUK Campaign and Joint Secretary to the Fair Fuel APPG for Hauliers and Motorists says: “The Government is sleep-walking into an economic Armageddon which they can easily avoid. FairFuelUK’s 1.7m supporters call on Rishi Sunak to put an end to the virtue signalling and un-consulted attempt to ban new diesel and petrol cars. The 2030 cliff edge target will bankrupt the economy, destroy jobs and automotive manufacturing, break the national grid, and prevent the development of more effective clean transport choices. Maintaining the ban will condemn the Tories to be in opposition for a generation. It’s not too late to incentivise manufacturers to bring environmental change, instead of decreeing a scientifically baseless ill-informed green policy, simply to massage the Government’s political ego to lead on an equally clueless climate change world stage. This policy is patently insane when cost-effective clean air solutions supported by drivers are already here. Douglas McWilliams. Vice Chair of the Cebr says: “I’m not against electric vehicles - quite the opposite. But forcing their premature adoption has huge costs which are not covered by the environmental benefits. And the bulk of the environmental benefits are lost in any case through additional production emissions.” Richard Tice, Leader of the Reform UK Party and Broadcaster says: “This ground-breaking but shocking report proves that we have all been deeply misled. The ban on selling ICE cars from 2030 would cost some 5 times more than the notional environmental benefit. Reform UK will campaign hard from now on to scrap this ill-conceived ban which will destroy British jobs. A better win win is possible: new technology giving cleaner engines, cleaner fuel, lower emissions whilst preserving British jobs and enhancing British industry” Neil Liversidge, Chair of the Motorcycle Action Group says: “This report shows the Government’s proposal to ban the internal combustion engine is utterly misguided, even if you use the assumptions, they themselves have made, and without even getting into the environmental arguments. Millions of motorcyclists stand to lose their freedom to buy and ride a petrol machine, even though the costs of this ban are orders of magnitude greater than any possible benefits. This is economic madness, a blight on civil liberties and a clear marker to Ministers to respond, either by explaining where they think this report is wrong, or by withdrawing this misplaced and damaging ban on our right to ride petrol motorcycles." Brian Gregory, Director of the Alliance of British Drivers says: “Based entirely on Government (best case) figures and assumptions, the Cebr estimate it is 5 times more expensive in real financial terms than the theoretical savings in banning new diesel and petrol cars in only 7yrs time, that the policy is purportedly to generate. It does none of the major UK political parties any credit whatsoever, that it has taken an alliance of informed, impacted road user groups to commission an independent, objective cost-benefit analysis but still maintaining the government's own figures and reasoning at the heart of the report. It shows that the lack of any erstwhile Tory Party economic appraisal to the 2030 ban, means the Government were scared of its true outcome, that the widely respected Cebr have now exposed. At no stage has the electorate been consulted or offered any opportunity to approve or reject by for example, a referendum. This policy simply will not work and has no democratic legitimacy.” Why do UK City authorities use drivers as easy Cash Cows ? ...Continued Because they can Continued... Something insidious is happening in our cities that is restricting our freedom of mobility and choice of transport. And it's getting worse by the day. Aberdeen, Bath, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Dundee, London, Greater Manchester, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Tyneside, Newcastle, and Gateshead all have one thing in common. The elected local politicians who run these cities have vigorously embraced a new and fast-growing money tree. An opportune, lucrative, and easy source of growing plunder to fill local authority coffers and their debt black holes. We have known for years that the environmental cultists have had it in for drivers. They would like to ban cars entirely but appear to have come to the correct conclusion that making diesel and petrol extinct is unreasonable to most people. So - with little if any consultation - a wave of national and local political schemes to make driving more expensive and complicated are coming thick and fast right across the UK. Canterbury and Oxford are now subject to a new set of anti-car restrictions - the 15-minute zone. And then there is of course, the much hated ULEZ - Ultra Low Emission Zone It's no coincidence the cities I have mentioned are mostly controlled by the impulsive green-loving SNP, Lib Dems and Let Wing Labour councillors. Political parties ignorant of - or too scared to challenge – reality that their anti-driver policies are hurting local economies, low-income families and small businesses. More councillors and city mayors are jumping on a fashionable bandwagon to fleece millions of pounds from the UK's cash cow - hard-pressed already highly taxed drivers.

For now, let’s focus on our capital city, but be in no doubt that what is happening in London is coming to a city near you. Labour mayor Sadiq Khan is set to expand the already punitive ULEZ to the whole of Greater London even though over 66% of people opposed it. From the end of August, every borough within the M25 will be ULEZ area, which means the owners of older diesel and petrol cars will pay £12.50 every time they enter the zone. The UK's most powerful local politician manipulates policy to suit his own personal agenda, which is not only contemptible but also possibly unlawful. He has deliberately demonised hundreds of thousands of well serviced vehicles, that have passed their MOTs. He has even changed specifications as to how emissions targets are met to catch even more drivers when he expanded ULEZ to the North and South Circular in 2019. What will stop him changing the goal posts in a year's time, if he needs more dosh? That's how desperate he is to raise cash from the perennial easy target in his continuing anti-driver quest. Ex-Mayor of London Boris Johnson described the expansion as an 'unfair tax grab'. He said: “It will hit hardworking families and businesses in outer London. Boris is supporting Hillingdon – one of several boroughs to be affected that are threatening a boycott by refusing to put up the Chinese-made cameras that will nick motorists. These councils are looking at legal ways to overturn the ULEZ expansion. Thankfully four sensible Labour MPs have also come out against it. Mayor Khan manipulated the public consultation to suit his own agenda According to London Assembly's Tory members, Mayor Khan excluded the views of 5,000 FairFuelUK supporters who took part in a consultation about the ULEZ expansion. Their responses were deliberately ignored simply because they objected to his unproven expansion plans. Call that democracy? These voters, taxpayers and free citizens took part in the Transport for London consultation process believing their comments would count. Mayor Khan canned them simply because they don't agree with his political agenda. That is why he must be subject to an urgent independent enquiry. Labour must suspend him from their party, too. When FairFuelUK’s Howard Cox met with Sir Keir Starmer recently and asked him why he still supports such a dishonest politician. His response: “Howard, Labour is doing well in London.” According to Transport for London's own data, the new enlarged ULEZ zone will be environmentally ineffective in making any difference to pollution levels. Let's not beat about the bush. Khan's scheme is purely a devious cash grab hidden behind the virtual-signalling emotive cover of improving air quality. When the ULEZ was expanded to the North and South Circular it generated an extra £94m for TfL in just one year. It is predicted the new expansion plans will generate £300million. In a FairFuelUK opinion poll of 44,000 UK drivers carried out in December 2022, one in three sole traders and one in four visitors said they will never drive into London again. The impact of high pump prices and Khan's vindictive policies taxes will mean many businesses will go to the wall. The misguided belief that hitting the worse off in the pocket will save the planet, has to be challenged. If the internal combustion engine is so deadly to our health, why not ban them ALL from entering our cities? The war on drivers around the UK shows conclusively it's the money that counts. The message is clear: “You are most welcome to bring in your diesel, provided you pay for the privilege with your hard-earned dosh.” It is time for all city mayors and council leaders to rethink their road user strategies and incentivise drivers - not just use them as their ideological ATMs. The good news to end on, 6 London Councils have just issued a Judicial Review against Khan's selfish ill-informed anti-driver plan, based on lack of consultation, an absence of any cost benefit analysis and breaking statutory requirements. So, millions of drivers may just sleep much better believing London's ULEZ expansion plan may not happen. If that is the case, what will those elected urban lemmings decide to do with their copycat plans to fleece hard pressed high tax paying motorists in their Cities across the UK? ....Continued “You are most welcome to bring in your diesel, provided you pay for the privilege with your hard-earned dosh.” Busting TfL’s 4000 Fatalities Lie “Sadiq Khan's claim 4,000 Londoners are killed each year by exposure to air pollution is shocking enough to take seriously, but not at face value. 6 Yrs ago FairFuelUK’s Howard Cox explained this untruth was pure opportunistic emotive propaganda, not fact. Now, the respected Climate Debate UK and the Together Declaration decided to have a closer look. Here’s their take.. “The science is clear: Khan is wrong. The 4,000 deaths figure comes from a report by the Environmental Research Group at Imperial College, who used estimates of risk produced by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Pollution (COMEAP). But COMEAP finds NO EVIDENCE of a causal relationship between air pollution and deaths, and advised against implying that they have, requiring that 'caveats and uncertainties are communicated clearly'. Some COMEAP scientists argued that even these cautions aren't enough, because mortality risk estimates would 'mislead the public into believing that [air pollution] is causally associated with an increased risk of death'. A generous interpretation of COMEAP's findings is that radical pollutionreduction policies may extend life expectancy by two months. In our report, we point out that this hypothetical benefit is trivial when compared to the better-evidenced relationship between income and health, both of which will be damaged by Khan's policies. The Mayor's shocking claims have no basis in science and will do more harm than good.” Source: Climate Debate UK and the Together Declaration https://togetherdeclaration.org/ulez/

Why is UK road transport and economic policy being dictated by a costly Net Zero pipe dream and an ill-informed subsidised green agenda ? Pressure Group CAR26.Org argues alongside FairFuelUK, combustion engines work better than EVs CAR26.Org is a UK-based pressure group pushing hard with FairFuelUK for cancellation of the proposed UK ban on petrol and diesel cars. Lois Perry, CAR26 Director says: “The potential drawbacks of electric cars include range anxiety for drivers who may be worried about running out of power before they can reach their destination. There are not enough charging stations or other facilities to support the widespread use of electric cars in the UK, nor adequate plans to install them, and this infrastructure gap will be a significant barrier to adoption for many consumers. Combustion engines work better than electric cars. They have a higher energy density, which means they can go further on a single tank of fuel than electric cars can on a single battery charge. They are cheaper to produce and maintain, making them more accessible to people from all walks of life, and do not require big investment when EV batteries are worn out. Also the forced adoption of EV technology for drivers, include a proven fear, electric cars will be too expensive, impractical, or inconvenient for their daily lives. I believe there’s a sinister agenda against the freedom of movement that traditional cars now deliver to Britons, by rationing travel and forcing citizens onto poor public transport. Despite these concerns, the UK government has set an ambitious almost unassailable target of phasing out all new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. This will be a significant challenge, requiring a massive shift in both consumer behaviour and the infrastructure supporting the country's transportation system. And there is the little matter of the National Grid not up to spec to service millions of EVs being charged. My CAR26.Org will continue to play an important role in this debate, helping to shape public opinion and influencing the policy decisions that will determine the future of transportation in the UK. Comments from third party groups and MPs on Govt’s anti-driver policies. An angry Brian Gregory, Policy Director of the Alliance of British Drivers says: "Bluntly, we can only expect more - and increased severity of - the same patently insane policies from government and its departments that we have already experienced to date. The entire UK political establishment is ethically, economically and scientifically brain-dead. They've lashed the wheel to a course charting a glancing impact with the tungsten-sharp iceberg that is Net Zero; ripping the economic guts out of UK plc; and sinking us into a bottomless pit of terminal economic decline. They meanwhile swan about on deck, parroting Net Zero platitudes; "effectively" rearranging the recliners while China closes in on world economic dominance. This complacency is clear from a government-sponsored document which cost £5m of taxpayers' hard-earned money. It said car use reduced to 60% of 2020 levels, no domestic or foreign holiday flights or holiday cruises, & no international sea freight (= no imported goods!!); accompanied by the total destruction of UK manufacturing industry, of our wealthcreating industrial base - and also by the undeliverable electrification of EVERYTHING. That is to say, the very definition of TOTAL INSANITY. So - unless you are prepared to rise up against this undemocratically imposed tyranny, and to vigorously oppose such developments with all your political might - expect more scientifically-unsupportable (and economically damaging) speed limit reductions, more congestion-, emissions increase inducing LTNs, more CAZs, more ULEZs, and more MRGs (Mobility Restriction Ghettoes). It really is time to leverage that might to protect everything you hold dear, or forever lose it all. Vote out all the politicos who are promoting this insanity, and replace them with candidates who totally reject these reckless policies. Whatever their alternatives, they cannot be more economically-damaging in the long run than those currently being implemented. “The arbitrary proposed 2030 sales ban of new diesel and petrol vehicles is one of the Government’s nanny-state interventions to vainly try to achieve its unrealistic and hugely expensive Net Zero target. Unfortunately, this policy has no regard for our road users and will pile additional costs on to hard pressed consumers and businesses. “I welcome this report’s recommendations – particularly regarding the establishment of a Road User Consultative Group. This way our road users and taxpayers can demonstrate clearly to Government the strength of feeling and concern about their current approach.” Philip Davies Conservative MP for Shipley in West Yorkshire “I welcome the recommendations of this report that highlights the need for a viable move to clean fuels that does not impact adversely on the economy, drivers or businesses. We must also ensure that all road users are involved in the development of road transport strategy and so I particularly support the idea of a Road User Consultative Group. I urge policy makers to consider very carefully the recommendations of this well researched and informative piece of work by the Fair Fuel APPG.” James Sunderland, Conservative MP for Bracknell “My constituents are already facing big pressures on their household budgets. Now the prospect of a ban on petrol and diesel cars threatens to make driving the pastime of a privileged few. The Government urgently needs to rethink this out of touch policy, which will be bad for working families and potentially bad for the environment too.” Graham Stringer, Labour Party MP for Blackley and Broughton since 1997 “As a Minister for Transport, I argued that the ban should come into force in 2050. Which would allow petrol and diesel drivers time to adjust to a new regime or for fossil fuels to become even cleaner. The accelerated change agreed after my time in the ministry risks disadvantaging many small businesses and private car users. Notably in rural areas like the one I represent, where access to public transport is limited.” Sir John Hayes Conservative MP for South Holland and The Deepings MP Comments in FairFuel APPG Report 2021 are even more relevant https://fairfueluk.com/APPG-FFUK

Mark M, Bradford, I will never vote for any party again that supports net zero, always voted conservative but will never vote for them again, I don’t care if labour get in can’t be any worse than this shambles, I will be voting Reform. Lesley L, Petersfield, I wish all of these environmental measures were implemented in good faith for the common good. Unfortunately, most appear to be money making schemes. Motorists are still easy targets as we often have no viable alternatives for essential journeys. Andy R, Sheffield, I live in Sheffield and by choice drive a pickup and so it is classed as commercial running Euro 4 standards. If I swap this for a BMW X5 or Range Rover and the likes pumping out far more emissions than my Nissan Navara, I could still drive in the zone and so tell me how it can be about cleaner air? Is it not just a cash generator / extra tax for local tradesmen that may be forced to pay the fee, or forced into getting newer vehicle with both outcomes meaning price increase to their customers??? Jenny C, Kent, I have to look after my 92 years old Mother, who has dementia and is incapable to go anywhere without me driving her. With sky high fuel costs, pointless LTNs, ULEZs her trips out, food shopping and visits to hospitals to stimulate her mind will definitely be severely curtailed. It’s sickening how the Government I voted for is screwing motorists all based on climate change lies. I am genuinely sickened by incompetent national politicians and the local ones lead by Khan who are allowed to ignore the hard working majority who did not ask for bloody green policies that will do bugger all, for the planet but will definitely cost everyone in the pocket. Never will vote Tory again! Andrew B, Chelmsford, I don't feel that anti-motorist legislation helps reduce traffic congestion or reduce pollution, but is just legislation that discriminates against the less well-off. Les J, Abergele, EV vehicles with no other means of propulsion are not yet technologically advanced enough to be a viable alternative to ICE vehicles. Until they can fully recharge within 5 minutes and cover a minimum of 500 miles between charges, it is not fair to allow them to be sold to the unsuspecting public. Self charging hybrid vehicles are the only viable alternative at this time Ian W, Paisley, Climate change has been ongoing for the last 4.6 billion years & has a 100,000 year cycle. Banning petrol/diesel vehicles, to replace with EVs will have no difference to Earth's climate cycle. Further, there is not enough lithium on our planet to keep the supply of lithium batteries going. The drive to EVs has been ill-thought out & will fail. And the banning of new petrol/diesel vehicles will cause an economic crisis. Neil F, Cambridge, Cambridge city is my nearest to me, I use park and ride to go shopping in the city centre. If they introduce a tax on cars I will not drive into the zone to buy anything that requires me to use the car I will drive to Royston, Biggleswade or St Neots instead, I will not pay to drive into the zone under any circumstances. I am sure I am not alone so businesses will suffer in Cambridge or any other area that introduce these taxes on drivers. Jonathan H, Braintree, Being a van owner and driving 25,000 miles per year I’m worried about the ban on ICE vans and cars in 2030. As I live in a flat I don’t want an electric vehicle that will need charging everyday using public chargers whether they are available or not.Do they expect people to do a days work and then charge their vehicles. That would be hours every week wasted. G R, Streatham, At present I live just outside the ulez but will be in it when it comes in this year. Why is the government not doing anything to stop this. How do they expect people to move from diesel or petrol and buy a new car within months? It will affect what i do and where I go. public transport does not go to the places i want to go without adding hours to the journey. Andrew S, Sunderland, As someone who will have to travel to and from work, through Newcastle/Gateshead low emissions zone everyday, I feel as a motorist, I am being penalised. I have to pay up to £8 per day to park, just to goto work. Another £12.50 puts me in an impossible situation. I could add another 1to 2hrs commute to my journey (each way in rush hr), or lose 2hrs pay per day, just to goto work. My employer won't transfer me to another site, so I am stuck. John R, Crook, All transport policy is generated in London, and is entirely inappropriate for most areas outside big conurbations. I used to work in Northumberland, where many people lived in places with no public transport whatsoever. Typically people often depended on a £2000 car for all their transport needs. They cannot afford a car that runs on E10, never mind £30000 for an electric vehicle ... © FairFuelUK March 2023 Email: campaign@fairfueluk.com Howard Cox, 07515421611 Government & Local Councils MUST Listen to the Majority, not the brainwashed “cult”. Mark E, London, I strongly believe measures such as LTNs and Cycle Lanes have increased traffic and journey times in parts of London, and therefore have made pollution worse. They are there to raise money and penalise the many if favour of the few. They are fundamentally unfair and should be reversed without further delay. T R, Erith, I have tried to think of a road safety feature or pollution control method that has improved motorcycling or motorcycle safety over the past 30 years. I'm still trying to think of one (excluding improvements to tyres, brakes, clothing, etc). Yet motorcyclists are now listed in the Highway Code as a vulnerable road user! The response from a local Council (RBG) " Yes we know this makes the road less safe for motorcycles, but we are committed to introducing more cycle lanes”. David W, Nuneaton, Yet again, these charges affect the poorer people who can't afford new cars. In my opinion battery cars are only a short term fix anyway and are not as environmentally friendly as they are made out to be Craig N, Shetland, Why not just make public transport cost effective and more convenient than using a car? I imagine though that would be 'too difficult' much easier to tax the poor motorist further. Carrot or stick and the stick is easier to administer and might be profitable too. Alan T, Poole, Why is it not compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they are provided? My local authority must have spent millions over the past 5 years putting in cycle lanes and cyclists don't use them. They just continue to use the road which has been narrowed to allow for the cycle lanes. I get infuriated with cyclists. David S, Morley, We need more help for disabled drivers I am disabled due to serving my country as a soldier and they make it impossible for me to get to shops or other places in our local cities, shame on them. Jane D, Manchester, Whilst I appreciate that my city, Manchester, is over congested, I believe we should be able to choose our mode of visiting the city, especially for the aged and less mobile. Manchester citizens reflected this when they voted some years ago not to have a congestion charge. Many bus routes in Manchester have been removed by the bus companies themselves, leaving less choice for the public. Trevor N, Skelton, Where we live a car is essential. The nearest town 8 miles away. The bus "service" is one bus per week (run by a charity). Deborah T, Leeds, Voted Tory all my life, but no more, they are liars and now bow to any minority in this country, absolutely sick to death of them!!!! Travis S, Manchester, I live in Greater Manchester and recall some years ago taking part in a referendum which rejected the proposal to create the largest charge zone anywhere. If we voted against it why is it now being imposed? what has happened to democracy? Thomas G-P, Whitland, This pensioner will be forced to give up his car. It's not possible to visit the supermarket, have Christian fellowship, company without a car in the country. Going to the recycling centre with my garden waste in a trailer will be impossible. I shall be forced to move to sheltered accommodation prematurely. I could go on. 12p Duty increase would make life difficult if not impossible. Nick N, Waterlooville, The shift towards electric vehicles is the wrong policy, the Government is putting all it's eggs into one basket(a recipe for disaster),and the emission charges and ULEZ are just another way to punish motorists, people can't afford to change their car with the present economic situation a lot of us find ourselves in. There needs to be a common sense approach done by people who know what living in the real world is like, NOT politicians. Michael S, Maidenhead, The motorist is the largest unrepresented group in Britain. We have no rights, only obligations and penalties. We're cash cows for local authorities and traffic departments, and our constitutional right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is trampled with every camera citation. We have no right of appeal except with the threat of higher penalties if we do, and we have no statutory representation at any level of government. Well done Howard Cox!!! Chris B, Chippenham, The green agenda is a worthy cause except that the deadlines are wholly unrealistic and more importantly will continue to damage our fragile economy. The false narrative is that electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly. The total energy used to produce them is up to 6x more than that for a petrol vehicle.Damien G, LancingThe Goverment use global warming/climite change as an excuse to tax and make money and control people. The Fuel prices are a joke and there is no transparency. Phyllis H, Ross-on-Wye, Thank you for championing this vital campaign. I really fear for the future of this country. How can anyone really believe that the WEF would be a good idea? The trouble is that MPs are not interested in what is good for the country or the people who pay their salaries! I am ashamed of my country and it will be totally destroyed very soon. Lesley BL, Gillingham, Public transport not fit for purpose. Different rules for ages free bus passes depending where you are. Find a bus rurally!! Nonsensical inclusion of trunk roads just 'in' a ULEZ Bristol a dreadful example of that. Sends traffic into local roads/rat run issues then. Emissions of vehicles not taken into consideration-difference between Euro 5 and 6 madness. Volte face with the diesel/petrol argument as we were encouraged to go Diesel. Explain a 23p difference petrol v diesel. Euro 10 damages Ronald H, Epsom, Mayor Khan is anti motorist and is finding ways to fill the black hole in TFL finances. The amount of carbon dioxide produced building a electric car is huge and it would take years for a non compliant car to produce the same amount. Electric and Hybrid car owners will probably by 2027 have to pay to use the road as there will be very few non compaint vehicles in use and he will have to find another cash cow Richard C, Littlehampton, If Mayor Kahn was serious about reducing NOx emissions he would ban the polluting vehicles completely not charge them & allow them to continue to have the alleged negative effect on air quality. THE ULEZ IS NO MORE THAN A CASH-GRABBING TAX! Kathy G, Exeter, I feel congestion charges penalise low income families. they have no choice as cant afford electric cars and the bus service is poor and u reliable. In bristol my family have to drive to school in the city centre with 6 children. there is no school bus. its too far to cycle and there's no direct bus plus its unrealistic with 6 children. Family have to pay £200 a mo th just to get to school on top of petrol and exorbitant parking charges. Families with city school children should be exempt. Marc L, Gravesend, Keep up the good work on fighting for motorists. The only reason Sadiq Kahn is expanding the ulez zone is because he's bankrupting TFL and needs the extra revenue, he's an incompetent mayor and should be replaced. Anthony B, Brighouse, It is about time that UK Governments grasp the fact that this country at the very worst only produces 1% max of global emissions and stop persecuting the motorists. Chris B, Wellington, In a country turning to crap, the push to make us use public transport and/or stop travelling, is pushing the country onto its knees. Public transport is not affordable nor is it convenient. Anything west of Bristol you better have a car! Alex P, Kings Lynn, I'm sick and tired of these constant attacks on the motorist. I live in Norfolk and its impossible to travel around with the limited bus and train options. The government needs to stop this net zero nonsense and realise us drivers don't drive for fun it's necessity. Give us a viable alternative or stop this nastiness against motorists. Stephen T, Romford, If Sadiq Khan is really concerned about the air quality in London then why is he not including office and other hi-rise buildings with air conditioning in the ULEZ charging framework. TfL’s own figures show that office buildings with aircon produce just over 40% of the emissions he doesn’t want while motorcycles barely register on the scale. When he switches off the aircon in City Hall and opens a window I might start listening to him again….might… Steve L, Coulsdon, I’m a green badge taxi driver with an EV and it’s now more expensive to run it on electric than it is to fill it with petrol. How does that make any sense. I find myself filling it with electricity less and less. Also in the winter the heater drains the battery and in the summer the air con drains the battery. In saying that, I do love the vehicle but it’s a lot less efficient on electric. I see Howard on talk tv quite a lot. Keep up your good work mate. A random selection of comments from 125,000 real people airing their views on all things anti-driver Aspect is London's largest fleet of residen al and business property maintenance experts. Their fleet of over 200 yellow (and blue) vans are all owned by Aspect and run on diesel. The drivers are all responsible to cover their own ULEZ charges and fuel costs. The increase in fuel prices has also hit them all very hard in the pocket. Their drive me has gone up significantly because of severe conges on in London compounded by the needless expansion of ULEZ and the 20 mph zones "grinding London to a halt as a result". According to Mar n Mackie, Aspect’s Technical Manager, "If the drivers spend half their day driving, and are not able to earn, that is also impac ng on their livelihoods.”