Andy Burnham just insulted everyone with a car – even Rachel Reeves wasn’t this clueless.TA
As diesel hits a record price of £2 a litre, motorists need all the help they can get. Instead, the PM has just punched them in the face.
Andy Burnham’s helping hand to drivers feels more like an offhand slap (Image: Getty)
Motorists could be forgiven for wondering what happened to Labour’s promise to make life more affordable. Diesel has just hit record two quid, while a litre of unleaded isn’t far behind at £1.75. Filling a family-sized diesel car now costs around £110, almost £32 more than before the US-Iran conflict began. Petrol drivers are paying about £23 more for a full tank. And it could get worse, with the world’s biggest independent oil trader Vitol Group warning crude could double from just over $100 a barrel to $200.
If that happens, many motorists will be driven off the road. They simply can’t keep up with those sorts of price increases, on top of everything else. Andy Burnham can’t control global oil prices, but his government can decide how much tax to levy on every litre. That puts Chancellor John Healey under growing pressure to ease the burden in his Budget on October 28.
As every motorist knows, the wholesale oil price isn’t the only thing that affects what we pay at the pumps. When we fill up, we’re topping up the taxman’s tank too. First, there’s fuel duty, an excise tax charged at a fixed rate for every litre of petrol or diesel sold. The current rate is 52.95p a litre. On top of that, motorists pay VAT at 20%, calculated on the whole price, including fuel duty.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Tax accounts for roughly 47% of a litre of petrol costing 175p, and around 43% of diesel at £2. Fuel duty has been frozen at its main rate since 2011, apart from the temporary 5p-a-litre cut introduced in March 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent energy prices soaring. Successive governments extended that cut rather than risk an immediate increase at the pumps.
Former Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves continued the freeze and the 5p cut in her 2024 and 2025 Budgets. She even cancelled a planned inflation-linked increase. But she left a timebomb behind for Healey, by announcing a gradual reversal of the temporary cut.
Under her timetable, motorists face a 3p rise in January, then another 2p in March. That will take fuel duty back towards its pre-2022 level. Desperate motorists want that scrapped and more. Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK, has called for a 10p cut in fuel duty to “stop hammering Britain’s motorists, hauliers and farmers”.
So what’s Burnham doing? Nowhere near enough. The Government has added petrol and diesel prices to Google Maps, promoting it as a way for drivers to find cheaper forecourts. Ministers estimate the scheme could save households around £40 a year.
There’s a problem. That information is already available through a range of apps including Waze, PetrolPrices, the AA, Confused.com and RAC Fuel Watch. Burnham is doing little new, while trying to claim the glory for it.
Google Maps makes finding cheaper fuel more convenient. It doesn’t make fuel cheaper. And some motorists have questioned whether all the displayed prices are accurate or up to date.
Extending the 5p cut prevents the planned tax increase for now. Scrapping the remaining duty altogether would go much further. But with fuel duty raising more than £24 billion a year for the Treasury, and Healey’s fiscal headroom vanishing by the day, relief is far from guaranteed.
Healey has not committed to further fuel-duty cuts in the Budget. He may decide to postpone Reeves’s planned increases, but motorists can’t assume relief is coming. So far, Burnham’s help is more like a slap in the face. Motorists may get another one in the Budget.
Andy Burnham clarifies ‘fairer’ state pension triple lock changes for those born 1967-1996
Andy Burnham says the change is fairer and asked people what they think
Andy Burnham announced the change (Image: CHRISTOPHER FURLONG, POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Andy Burnham has provided clarification following proposed alterations to the State Pension. The Prime Minister has confirmed that should Labour secure victory at the next general election the party intends to reform the mechanism determining yearly increases.
Existing regulations mean that the State Pension increases each April by a figure based on the “triple lock“, meaning the rise corresponds to either the inflation rate, average earnings growth or 2.5% – whichever proves highest. But concerns have been raised over its long-term viability, given it has produced substantial growth in State Pension values.
Data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies reveals that since it was introduced in 2011, the triple lock has seen State Pension values rise considerably faster than had it followed solely prices or earnings. It said the pension was now approximately 14% higher than it would have been if it had only tracked earnings.
At present, most people on a full State Pension receive £241.30 a week. Under the triple lock this is likely to increase to approximately £250.70 a week in April 2027.
The proposed reforms, unveiled during the Labour Party Conference, mean the State Pension will no longer increase by whichever is highest of 2.5%, average earnings or inflation, but will instead rise by the greater of inflation and 2.5%. Funds generated through these modifications will go towards establishing a National Care Service, designed to address care costs borne by families while simultaneously alleviating pressures upon the NHS.
The government’s proposals have provoked a mixed response. Critics included Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite union, who cautioned that the plans risked amounting to “electoral suicide”, reports the Mirror. Conversely, Tom Pope, chief economist at the think tank Institute for Government, welcomed the move, stating the triple lock was “a much more sensible way to increase pensions”.
Andy Burnham has since taken to social media to clarify what the proposed changes would mean in practice – and to canvas public opinion. Writing on his Facebook page, he said: “I want to explain what’s happening with the Triple Lock and why.
“The first thing to know is this: The state pension will keep going up. The Triple Lock means your pension rises each year by whichever is highest: inflation, wages or 2.5%. So it’s always rising.
“That exact system will stay in place until the end of this Parliament. Then, pensions will still continue to rise every year. Going up at least by inflation or 2.5%, whichever is higher. And under these proposals, wages still matter too. The state pension will continue to keep pace with earnings over time.
“The savings generated from this adjustment will help to fund a National Care Service, so older people can have the security of a State Pension that keeps rising every year, and the peace of mind of knowing they won’t face catastrophic care costs if they need support later in life.
“I think this is a fairer deal for older people. What do you think?” The post generated thousands of responses alongside more than 18,000 likes, with opinions sharply divided.
David questioned: “Why is it that when the country needs to raise money it always looks at raising it from the poorest in society i.e. pensioners and people on benefits. State pension is not a benefit it is a payment from an insurance policy that has matured. If the tax rate on earnings over 200k were to be raised by 5% it would not affect the lifestyle of those earning it.”
It will come into effect in 2030 (Image: Getty)
Brenda suggested: “It would be fairer to give pensioners the living wage and link future increases to MP’s pay rises.”
However, Stephanie supported the proposal, stating: “It’s fair, and I speak as someone a few years away from state pension age who this will affect. If we want an NHS that works then we need a care system that works too. At least you’ve grasped the nettle, which is more than your predecessors did.”
Stephen concurred, saying: “I’m in my Seventies and think the proposed changes are a good compromise for both present pensioners and younger people who have to fund our pensions.”
