Best Of

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime

Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out

See the Danny Citrinowicz tweet. He reckons messages will have been exchanged but no serious negotiation.

With whom ?
They have killed everyone they were talking to.

Off any conceivable topic -

A rather strange thing happened to me yesterday. I was stopped on a quiet residential street by a middle-aged blonde woman who was crying. In a strong Russian accent, she begged me for the use of my phone, saying that somebody was about to die and she needed to message her priest. Being fairly good-natured, I let her use it, as it did not seem a flight risk, being a) female and b) rather stout. She tapped out a message in Russian (I speak the language a little and have the keyboard installed on my phone). I checked the number as she did so and it didn't look like one of those scam numbers where they charge you £50 for a text. She thanked me profusely and we went out separate ways.

About an hour later I got a reply my phone. Not out of noseyness (well, maybe a bit), but to check it wasn't some kind of scam of some kind, I translated the message she had sent and the reply she received. The original message was:

"Father, I'm furious, have mercy on me for Christ's sake. That's why this is happening. I'm dying and in despair. I can forgive you. Unblock the number please. I beg on my knees. [Her name]"

And the curt, rather dramatic reply:

"You have crossed the line beyond which there is no forgiveness".

I checked and the only sin for an Orthodox Christian for which there is no forgiveness is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Murdering thousands of Ukrainians is fine if you say sorry apparently. But I'm not sure if blasphemy is what he meant.

Anyway, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But it feels like the first chapter of a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story.

Fecking pathetic Trump TACOing out again.

If you're going to go to war, do it properly.

Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?

We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.

Either shit or get off the pot.

There was no point.

What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?

There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.

The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.

It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.

I don't persist in thinking it could be, I persist in thinking it should be.

Two very different things.

I have said all along I expect President TACO to feck this up.

It may be less than 10% support but I am quite content to be in that less than 10% and advocate for my beliefs.

You have persisted in saying this action was a good idea.
It isn't.

Whether or not Trump chickens out doesn't change that.

Fecking pathetic Trump TACOing out again.

If you're going to go to war, do it properly.

Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?

We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.

Either shit or get off the pot.

There was no point.

What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?

There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.

The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.

It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.

Fuel shortages in Australia


“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.

Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”

https://x.com/sprinterpress/status/2035720933881602385?s=46

Jeezo. This really is happening, isn’t it? How long before the great British driving public starts to panic and we see long queues at petrol stations?

Local Tesco Express was quiet just now BUT 3 of the 6 pumps were coned off, suspect running low.

No diesel in our local Tesco, for a couple of days apparently (my wife picked up a few - non fuel - things there this morning and asked).

Are we doing enough to stimulate panic buying yet?

I can see the FTSE jumped 3% on the TACO announcement but then fell back 1% after my report from Tesco Express, so I'm happy I've done my bit

A

NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?

For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already

Yes, that's right.

But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.

So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.

However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.

Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.

Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.

Depends on just how severe the depression is.

I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.

Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.

It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.

Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.

By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.

But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user

Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.

Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.

There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.

You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.

40%, ie a minority. Which means the majority of the bottom quintile income households do have a car.

And those that do overwhelmingly do because they need it to get to work. It is essential for them.

And those in the bottom quintile driving a (typically more than a decade old) car to get to their low-paid work are paying a vastly higher proportion of income on fuel duty than the wealthier quintiles do. Indeed the wealthiest quintiles may not be spending a penny on it.

The tax is extremely regressive.