Something I've been banging on about for ages; divide and conquer. First the disabled and sick, followed by the public sector workers, then the unemployed, then the pensioners and now any worker associated with the unions. It stands out a mile for me what they are doing.

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.

The 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'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.

You cannot justify a strike that will have a severe impact on the country based on the fact that another group or sector is more greedy than this one. The economic climate we are in means anyone in a job should be thankful of that fact and they should be willing to compromise. If every industry did as you suggest they should and strike whenever their conditions are changed, the country would be chaotic.

Your other points on the economy are irrelevant, particular the bits about London rental prices. The general economic downturn is relevant however and the workers here should realise they are on a fantastic package in a relatively secure industry. Some of those striking are earning £50k+ and on final salary pensions. One company involved says their drivers average £45k a year. Some of the reasons given for strike action when interviewed on the radio this lunchtime included that their pension provider had changed a few times or that they had been asked to deliver to a tighter schedule so to maximise revenue. These are not issues the wider public is going to support like they have over previous large scale industrial action.

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.