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 Just Insulted Everyone With a Car – ‘Even Rachel Reeves Wasn’t This Clueless’
Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of a fresh political controversy after comments about motoring costs and Britain’s economic pressures prompted critics to accuse him of being out of touch with ordinary drivers. The criticism has been framed in uncompromising language, with opponents arguing that people who rely on their cars are already struggling with the cost of fuel, insurance, repairs and everyday travel.
The comparison with Rachel Reeves adds another layer to the dispute. Reeves, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, has faced sustained scrutiny over taxation, household finances and the government’s approach to economic growth. Critics invoking her name are suggesting that Burnham’s remarks risk appearing even less sensitive to the pressures facing motorists.
But political insults are not evidence in themselves. To understand the row, it is necessary to distinguish the words attributed to Burnham, the interpretation placed on them by his opponents and the practical questions facing drivers across Britain.
For millions of households, a car is not a luxury that can simply be abandoned. It is how people get to work, take children to school, visit relatives, attend medical appointments and reach shops that may be inaccessible by public transport. Any political discussion about motoring therefore touches on a basic question: how much does it cost people to maintain their independence, and what alternatives are realistically available?
Why motorists are sensitive to political comments
The cost of running a car extends far beyond the price displayed at a petrol station. Drivers must budget for fuel, insurance premiums, vehicle tax where applicable, servicing, repairs, tyres, parking and, for those who finance their vehicles, monthly payments.
For households already managing mortgages or rent, food bills and energy costs, an unexpected repair can put considerable pressure on the monthly budget. A damaged tyre, failed battery or mechanical problem can quickly turn into an expense that cannot easily be postponed.
The impact is particularly significant for people living in rural communities, smaller towns and areas with limited public transport. In some places, the bus service may be infrequent, stop early in the evening or fail to connect conveniently with a workplace. For shift workers, carers and parents juggling several commitments, driving may be the only practical option.
That is why motorists can react strongly when politicians discuss transport costs as if changing travel habits were straightforward. Telling someone to use public transport is not a complete answer if the relevant service does not exist, is unreliable or cannot get them to work on time.
Critics of Burnham argue that politicians should understand these realities before making statements that could be interpreted as dismissive of drivers. Their concern is that policies designed around urban transport networks may not work equally well in communities where the car remains essential.
However, the precise wording and context of Burnham’s remarks matter. Without examining the original statement, it would be premature to conclude that he intended to insult every motorist. Political commentary can turn a disputed policy position into a personal accusation, particularly when the subject is already controversial.
The central issue is whether his comments reflect a practical understanding of the costs and constraints facing drivers.