Mathematics brought rigor to Economics.
Unfortunately, it also brought mortis.

There has been a tremendous turnout today for the debate on fuel prices, with Rob Halfon leading, supported by Fair Fuel UK.

I am delighted so many members are today pressing for lower taxes on behalf of constituents. Fuel taxes are a scandalous cash cow for the Treasury and it is time the motorist received a fair deal. As I replied to the many constituents who first wrote to me about the campaign, a substantial, sustainable cut to fuel duty requires the elimination of the deficit plus cuts to public spending. That is a tough task, but it is right that the Treasury should stop further rises in duty and consider reductions, which might actually result in greater revenues.

Beyond that, the Government needs to explain to people that the Country’s commitment to decarbonising the economy and transport, begun by the last government, would mean profound changes to the way we travel. Just this morning in a Transport Committee seminar, we heard from three groups of witnesses who described various, sometimes crazy, uses of taxpayers’ money to encourage a move to low-carbon transport. For example, a network of recharging points is thought necessary to give people confidence to buy electric cars, even as proponents believe that network would scarcely be used. This policy agenda is risky and expensive for taxpayers. One of my colleagues described the conversation about behaviour change as “totalitarian” and of course he is right that there is today no apparent limit to the scope of government action for our own good.

Finally, I am concerned that the level and volatility of the price of oil may have as much or more to do with the Federal Reserve and Dollar debasement as to do with supply and demand. The following chart shows how the price of oil was low and stable in Dollars and gold until Bretton Woods broke down, after which it remained low and relatively stable in gold but high and volatile in Dollars.

There’s not much the British Government can do about the Fed, but we ought at least to understand the problem before trying to deal with it. Unfortunately, it does look like oil and fuel prices are way too dependent on the actions of a few wise men in the central banks.

It’s wonderful that another petition has been so well supported in debate and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response shortly.

When Norman Baker delivered his recent statement on the sustainable local transport White Paper, I was surprised he said: “our transport decarbonisation strategy centres around the progressive electrification of the passenger car fleet”.

Of course, I understand why the Government is attempting to promote the use of electric cars and to decarbonise our transport system at taxpayer expense. There’s a consensus among certain political elites about what’s best for us all but it appears we won’t choose to do as others think we ought, so force will be used instead. And we will all pay for its administration. This much is to be expected. However, that particular line of the statement irritated me for two specific reasons.

Read the rest of the article and comment:  ConservativeHome’s Platform: Steve Baker MP: Britain’s low-carbon transport future will rely on petrol and diesel.

I had the pleasure today of meeting Ken Edwards, Peter Jennings and Michael Diggins of the M40 Chiltern Environmental Group. We explored the history of the M40, the problem and potential avenues to explore within today’s tight financial situation.

Living very near the M40 in Daws Hill, I have every sympathy with the Group’s objectives. The following chart is a noise report for my area:

Note that noise levels are for the most part above 65 dBA, which would be a reasonable level under European standards. I understand 25-30,000 people live within 300m of the motorway between junctions 3 and 8 and therefore suffer the noise. For many people, the noise is far worse than this.

Certainly a situation to be pursued actively!