Best Of

If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .

Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .

Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .

The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.

When they FINALLY get their ducks in a row, the US is in a very strong negotiating position.

Their planning should have got them there sooner.

If that was the plan, why did they try bombing Tehran instead of seizing Kharg Island in the first hour?

The plan was bomb stuff, Iran surrenders.

Yep. Too many Hollywood action movies where sweaty hard men break the rules to shoot all the baddies before getting the girl.

Just wait for Epstein War 2: the Ayatollah of Rock n Rollah!

https://youtu.be/ZfL4xKQeSfo?si=yMLNS6gg-ykEpYFM

That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.

I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence

I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.

Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o

Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.

We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.

We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.

Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.

(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)

Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.

It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.

This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.

Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.

Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.

Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.

(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).

Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.

I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in

What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?

O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.

Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.

It is the tax take of billions over time that is the benefit

It is economic vandalism not to add it to the exchequer over the next 20 years as we transaction away from fossil fuels

I don't disagree. But don't pretend it solves what we are currently dealing with.

(and the cumulative impact is still relatively tiny. Over 25 years, taking the OEUK figures, it will represent about 0.1% of our tax revenues).

Billions here, billions there and soon we are talking real money.

The same can be said about any sector. Deflating figures by counting them as a percentage of the total economy is disingenuous, unless you can come up with cuts to our expenditure equivalent to at least that 0.1% too. Good luck with that!

I don't disagree at all - just trying to put to bed the notion this the panacea to both our economic and tax challenges, and our energy security issues. It's whataboutery from people who can't accept that getting onto domestic renewables is the only rational response to what is going on right now (and I think the economic gains from doing that massively outweigh squeezing a little bit more oil and gas out of the North Sea, conditional on market reform).

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .

And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.

Labour are taking their concerns seriously, and Sunak’s administration was too. Immigration has been massively reduced. Deportations are up. Numbers seeking asylum are down (slightly).

If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .

Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .

Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .

The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.

When they FINALLY get their ducks in a row, the US is in a very strong negotiating position.

Their planning should have got them there sooner.

If that was the plan, why did they try bombing Tehran instead of seizing Kharg Island in the first hour?

That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.

I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence

I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.

Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o

Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.

We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.

We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.

Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.

(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)

Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.

It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.

This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.

Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.

Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.

Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.

(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).

Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.

I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in

What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?

O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.

Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.

Who exactly has ever suggested that?

Quotation required.

Otherwise that's not even a strawman.

BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.

The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.

I did not say it would solve it

The renewables undertaken by the conservatives was extraordinary and that should continue, but we must not to be a prisoner to some arbitrary target that the US, Russia and even China have no intention of following

I said it economic vandalism not to add the billions of tax to our revenue as we transition over 20 years

That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.

I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence

I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.

Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o

Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.

We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.

We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.

Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.

(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)

Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.

It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.

This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.

Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.

Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.

Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.

(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).

Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.

I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in

What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?

O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.

Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.

"those with no connection to economic reality"

That's essentially all of the political class in every country.

We've got Javier Milei and Mark Carney who are in rock throwing distance of reality. And that's about it.

Yes though they are very different. Carney, having worked inside the economic establishment, at Goldman Sachs, then twice as a central banker, will have two characteristics: he will never stray far from the "official" Treasury or central bank view, and he will always consider the short or medium term favourable reaction of the bond markets as the ultimate criterion of economic success. That's what central bankers generally do, just as pure politicians think that getting a bit of attention leading to a couple of points bump in the opinion polls is the sign of a successful policy. He also has relatively little experience of supply side problems.

Milei on the other hand is an academic, and will be free to think about much more long term, radically and about supply side issues. He will be willing to experience short term pain when he knows he is right.

I think Carney's much more conservative (small c) approach would have been OK when things are going well, as in this country in the mid- and late-90s, but what we need much more now than competent demand management are radical supply side reforms. So my vote would be for Milei.

Carney would do no more than manage our decline a bit more competently. With Milei we'd have a good chance of reversing it.

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.

But, populists rarely have good solutions.

That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.

The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.

Yet it is part of policy.

The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.

Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*

When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".

I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.

There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.

It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.

I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.

Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.

But bad drives out good.

We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.

It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.

This, I think, is what will kill off small charities reliant on volunteer leadership.

yeah hmrc are forcing them all to register for vat / corporation tax too at which point I'd be noping out

One of the medium sized charities told the government that this is “rationalisation” of the charity sector.

Same charity is about to be done for grotesque violations of just about all the rules.

Name and shame as there must be far more than just one.

The formal complaints are in, with the charity commission. I’ve been asked not to name them, by the complainants. Until the Private Eye story on it comes out.