If you read the statements from the companies involved you can see how much the average driver is on and exactly what the proposed changed to their conditions are. It isn't worth striking about and they've got to accept that the economic climate has changed.

For some, it has. The rich don't seem to be getting any less rich though, do they?

But not if you already have a vast income – and not if you're a domestic landlord in London, eh?

So in your world, the cost of living is rising hugely – but people should "accept that the economic climate has changed".

And what? Be unable to afford that rent? Have to choose between rent or food?

Have no disposable income – which would be so sensible, given how much of the economy is actually dependant on people having exactly that in order to survive, never mind actually grow.

So how is our service-based economy going to grow, in your mind and given your understanding of the 'changed economic climate'?

Whether that is the case or not (not going to argue the point as other people on here are better able to do so), faced with an enormous cut in wages and changes to working practises that undermine the safety not just of those workers but of everyone who comes within a reasonably large distance of them, they have the right to withdraw their labour and the employer has the duty to at least sit down and listen.

Neither is it helpful to say "well workers in sector A get this, so workers in sector 7G shouldn't expect to get that". It's a complete non-sequitur. The worst sort of straw-man, sixth-form debating society bull honky. (general point, not aimed at you [iper se[/i)

Can someone tell me how the tax rates for the 'rich' or the cost of rent in London have got to do with this? This isn't about the budget, or any other aspect of Government, it's about the drivers and their pathetic union not being willing to compromise on a fair deal offered to them.

Please enlighten us, what is this "fair deal" that has been offered to them?

Right-oh.
Mental note made that this dispute (not yet a strike) has definitely NOT been made worse by a total plonker of a minister suggesting that everyone fills up and has a bit spare tucked away.

Got it, ta.

Bastad coalition ministers, I've a good mind to sue Ed Davey.

[iThe Energy Minister, Ed Davey, today advised motorists to top-up their vehicles with fuel when they are half empty.

Speaking to the BBC Mr Davey said,

"I think our major advice is that people just need to do the sensible thing if they're going into the petrol station, they should get a full tank of petrol, not a half-tank of petrol, and they should top up where necessary."[/i

I've just followed his advice and I've now got £90 worth of unleaded in my diesel car's tank

Because you're the one invoking the 'changed economic conditions' in general.

Let's remind ourselves of exactly what you said:

"Greed and an unwillingness to reflect the realities of the economic world applying to them are the causes of this."

It is simply being pointed out to you that it is not 'changed economic conditions' for everyone. And indeed, for some, greed is still absolutely the order of the day – even when that directly impacts on those who are being affected.

And you have not, apparently, been able to answer the following: in these 'changed economic times', with the cost of living rising, perhaps you'd care to actually explain how reducing the amount of disposable income people have will actually do anything other than further damage the economy? Y'know – the economy that's something like 3/4 based on the service sector (including retail, finance, entertainment etc etc etc) and people's ability to have disposable income to spend on/in it?

Divide and conquer, sadly, still works.

That said, I think the upcoming OECD figures are the bigger bearing on this. Squeeze every last drop out of this quarter and then, technically, on a matter of semantics rather than economics, the country will not be in recession.

The dispute hasn't been caused or affected by Government. The panic buying has however, which I acknowledged.

Indeed you did and I apologise the misunderstanding.

The vast majority are on neither final salary pension schemes or £50k+ wages. Even then I would hazard a guess that those few who may be on £50k+, their subsistence allowance (night out money) is also included in that figure.

Some dirvers have had up six different pension providers in as many years. Imagine how it would feel for you to be doing the same job, driving the same vehicle to the same deliveries but for a different employer, with different T&Cs on an annual basis.

There is also the safety aspect to consider. I wouldn't be happy knowing that someone is piloting 25,000 litres of extremely volatile liquid, at an ever increasing speed, just to satisfy some accountant's perception of what can be done to secure a margin on the contract they've just won by undercutting the incumbent.