| Talbot |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 11:26 |
|
Red Diesel - response from Minister
|
I Faxed my MP abt Red Diesel and he fwd this to the appropriate Minister (David Jamieson (david.jamieson@dft.gsi.gov.uk)) The following is his response:
"A comparison between petrol and diesel in marine use inevitably revolves around power/weight ratios of engines, and the safety issues of fuel stored onboard and unintentional ignition. Petrol is used most commonly for high speed applications. The use of petrol outboards for high speed boating and the associated sports of water skiing, paragliding, and petrol inboard motors for jet ski are particularly well known. Where lower power/weight ratios are acceptable and where greater reliability is necessary, diesel engines are preferred, and indeed are the only practical option.
Particular requirements in the EU Directive on Recreational Craft acknowledge difficulties in the stowage of fuels having a flash point below 55 deg C, requiring that tanks are not part of the hull, are insulated from the engine compartment, and are protected from all other sources of ignition. As you will appreciate, this places petrol at a disadvantage, limiting its use significantly. Petrol engines are also inherently ill-equipped for anything more than use in relatively calm conditions due to the limitation of the ignition system.
Despite the removal of the "Red" status of diesel, the relative benefits of diesel as a marine fuel are considered to outweigh the increase in basic cost. Diesel remains cheaper than petrol; is less volatile; can be stored in integral hull tanks; and the vapour, although pungent, is much less dangerous than that of petrol. Diesel is also relatively more environmentally friendly than petrol."
Hands up all those like me who consider that this response is:
a. Fundamentally flawed as far as leisure craft are concerned.
b. Ignoring the real issues.
| longjohnsilver |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 11:45 |
|
|
Re: Red Diesel - response from Minister
|
Well he is a former "senior vice principal" of a Plymouth college who apparently dislikes the sea, so what more would you expect?
And wherever I look road diesel is now dearer than petrol, but then he probably never has to fill up at the pumps.
Edited by longjohnsilver on 15/04/2004 12:32 (server time).
| MedDreamer |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 11:58 |
|
|
Re: Red Diesel - response from Minister
|
My interpretation is that the Government are showing their hand. He is not missing the point he is negating your arguement by ignoring it.
Clearly their intention is to get rid of the duty "concession" on the basis that the cost of diesel is only one consideration of boat buyers and in their eyes not the primary one - safety, environment and performance are all to be considered.
Based on this response I would say it is already a lost cause and they have their case prepared
Martyn
The Dream is Alive
| jfm |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 12:01 |
|
|
Minister in Charge of Non Sequiturs
|
What an absurd response, or non-response.
Good illustration of one aspect of our political sytem. As a career choice you have to accept all this electioneering stuff and suchlike which if unsuccessful leaves you jobless and if successful leads you to a low paid job. Even Tone himself only makes £100kpa. So it's not a very attractive career to even half-clever people. Result: many ministers are just plain thick.......
| Andrew_Fanner |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 12:26 |
|
|
Re: Minister in Charge of Non Sequiturs
|
What a load of nonsense. I wonder if the fool has ever seen a boat, he has certainly never been through the purchase process bit that says "can I afford to run this thing?"
Vote them out as soon as possible.
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
| jhr |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 12:35 |
|
|
Re: Minister in Charge of Non Sequiturs
|
Agreed; either evading the question, or blind stupidity.
To be fair, the response was almost certainly drafted by a Civil Servant (it reads like something created by a Committee, which may also have been the case) and put in front of the minister to sign - which he quite possibly did without reading it and/or knowing what it was about. Ministers are bombarded with paper morning, noon and night and would never be able to do their jobs if they read everything that they put their names to.
Civil Servants are paid almost as little as Politicians, so your theory about the IQ of the writer(s) may still hold true, though I still subscribe to the view that there are many intelligent and committed people who are motivated by the idea of public service rather than wads of cash - but that's an argument that has aired on here before. The fact remains that the response indicates either that the person who wrote it has missed the point and is a blockhead, or that they know very well that they are evading the point, in which case they are being spectacularly cynical.
Either way, I tend to agree that the days of red Diesel are numbered - and I doubt that a change of government would make any difference.
Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
| PhilF |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 13:12 |
|
|
Re: Minister in Charge of Non Sequiturs
|
whoever believes that only clever people make money, quite the contrary I would say. its also insulting to all types of professions that require brains, but is low paid
| LeytonC |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 13:37 |
|
Re: Red Diesel - response from Minister
|
<quote>
Despite the removal of the "Red" status of diesel, the relative
</quote>
Think that line says it all...
The rest of the reply is absolute rubbish! dont think he has even been outside or lived in the real world.
Thanks
Leyton
(EXTAR Solutions - Software that works for you)
| jfm |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 14:22 |
|
|
|
Re: Minister in Charge of Non Sequiturs
|
Oh heck, that's not what I said, no insults intended and apologies for any made. Look, this is just a bulletin board for chrissakes so realise that people post in a hurry and please dont jump at chance of accusing people of being insulting to whole groups of others, eek. Now you got me doing it :-)
Anyway my point is that politics in the main does not attract the smartest clever businesslike people. Money is one reason but it's not the only one, as I said before I mentioned money there is the faff/uncertain outcome of electioneering. This is borne out by the empirical evidence (the letter at beginning of this thread is an example) especially where you're dealing with junior ministers
| ontheplane |
| (regular) |
| 15/04/2004 20:04 |
|
Re: Minister in Charge of Non Sequiturs
|
Blimey.....
If £100k p.a. is an "Only"
What the hell would you call what I earn!!!
Words like "potless" and "joke" springs to mind.... and I think there are a lot of other boaters out there that earn less than "only" £100k p.a. - we are the poor buggers that will be hit by a rise in the "red" - I'm sure that anyone who earns a "decent" wage (I dunno... £300k p.a. perhaps) won't be too badly hit by a few hundred pounds on a tankful eh...
Why can't we work 2 days a week and boat the other 5????