Not at all baked in but..... Assume Boris wants to stay PM at all costs. His MPs have foolishly given away their only easy chance of a fairly bloodless coup, but the form book says he is now on borrowed time.
Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.
1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.
2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.
From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?
(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).
The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.
That's the case for 2022 election.
(2) - perhap, but he can't hold an election now before the summer break (due to the 25 working day requirement).
So it's Autumn, specifically after conference season..... things will be much worse by then. Colder weather coming, nights drawing in, petrol at £2 per litre; diesel at £2.15. Nawh. He's toast if he tries that.
I know we love to speculate on it, but there really is no need or desire to hold an election. Even if he would win a majority, he's still looking at 30 seat losses. He won't really want that......
I suspect you've misunderstood this - the election timetable is set around normal working days (i.e. excluding Sat, Sun and BHs) rather than Commons sitting days. He could call an election for mid-July now.
I suspect I haven't. No way is he calling an election now for mid-July.
I was wrong three years ago when I said you couldn't have a December election, but we faced a massive political crisis and it HAD to be done in the end. We now face an economic crisis but not a political one. No one, but no one, wants an election either Thursday 14th July or Thursday 21st. The latter date is after the kids have broke up, and whilst the 14th probably isn't there will be too many people THINKING about the holidays to want to get excited by a GE. They'll hammer Johnson if he tries.
Remember, Brenda from Bristol is what the majority of people think. WE'RE the weirdos!
I agree that he won't - I'm just saying that theoretically he could.
I suppose yes, he technically could call one before the summer holidays (but not before MPs bugger off? I mean, don't they break up about two weeks earlier anyway). There is no possible date left in 2022 now that wouldn't involve massive risk. Summer hols or so close to it as to disrupt all the sports days (for the first time in three years)? - Not happening. The Con vote would collapse. After the summer? Nawh. Too cold, too wet, painted as desperate (Brenda from Bristol is on the line) and nothing is going to get better between now and Christmas.
He won't risk it. The time for a 'normal' GE was back in May. Absent a political crisis, the next time for one is now next year.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
All medium-term considerations. There needs to be the short-term consideration that millions of people can’t afford to both drive to work and feed their kids. And the high fuel price is making the food more expensive.
Price electicity of demand for petrol is something like 0.2. Only @Dura_Ace on this forum uses it discretionarily.
At the very least it could be stabilised such that gains in VAT from fuel were handed back on fuel duty.
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
For most people, petrol/diesel is price inelastic.
It's always at the margins that demand and supply come into balance. When you say that most people are price inelastic this only means that the price swings required to bring demand and supply into balance are greater. It doesn't mean that isn't what is happening.
That doesn’t apply to a product with a global price level, and a very small price electicity of demand.
There will be at least 10m, probably closer to 20m people today, using their cars to work. The cost of petrol is completely irrelevant to their decision to buy it, and if the price goes up too much they cut down on everything else on which they spend money. Or they quit their job, and claim benefits.
Not at all baked in but..... Assume Boris wants to stay PM at all costs. His MPs have foolishly given away their only easy chance of a fairly bloodless coup, but the form book says he is now on borrowed time.
Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.
1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.
2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.
From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?
(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).
The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.
That's the case for 2022 election.
(2) - perhap, but he can't hold an election now before the summer break (due to the 25 working day requirement).
So it's Autumn, specifically after conference season..... things will be much worse by then. Colder weather coming, nights drawing in, petrol at £2 per litre; diesel at £2.15. Nawh. He's toast if he tries that.
I know we love to speculate on it, but there really is no need or desire to hold an election. Even if he would win a majority, he's still looking at 30 seat losses. He won't really want that......
I suspect you've misunderstood this - the election timetable is set around normal working days (i.e. excluding Sat, Sun and BHs) rather than Commons sitting days. He could call an election for mid-July now.
I suspect I haven't. No way is he calling an election now for mid-July.
I was wrong three years ago when I said you couldn't have a December election, but we faced a massive political crisis and it HAD to be done in the end. We now face an economic crisis but not a political one. No one, but no one, wants an election either Thursday 14th July or Thursday 21st. The latter date is after the kids have broke up, and whilst the 14th probably isn't there will be too many people THINKING about the holidays to want to get excited by a GE. They'll hammer Johnson if he tries.
Remember, Brenda from Bristol is what the majority of people think. WE'RE the weirdos!
I agree that he won't - I'm just saying that theoretically he could.
I suppose yes, he technically could call one before the summer holidays (but not before MPs bugger off? I mean, don't they break up about two weeks earlier anyway). There is no possible date left in 2022 now that wouldn't involve massive risk. Summer hols or so close to it as to disrupt all the sports days (for the first time in three years)? - Not happening. The Con vote would collapse. After the summer? Nawh. Too cold, too wet, painted as desperate (Brenda from Bristol is on the line) and nothing is going to get better between now and Christmas.
He won't risk it. The time for a 'normal' GE was back in May. Absent a political crisis, the next time for one is now next year.
I don't think parliament needs to be sitting to be dissolved, does it?
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army. The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.
I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?
The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die
And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”
The reason for the Geneva Convention, is to be able to put the likes of Putin on trial afterwards.
Putin is an evil man, but he can quite rightly point to our hypocrisy and say What about Afghanistan? What about Iraq? Shock and Awe? Was that within ‘the rules’?
Vietnam? The bombing of Laos? Agent Orange? And so on, and so forth
Would Blair and Bush survive a trial in, say, Beijing, under the auspices of the Geneva Convention? I’m not at all sure they would. It is arguable they are guilty. And as for Kissinger carpet bombing neutral Cambodia and Laos. Killing tens of thousands, destabilising entire countries, kicking off the Khmer Rouge. UGH
Let’s face it, we like the “Geneva Convention” when it suits us, and we simply ignore it when it doesn’t
Will Tory MPs be fooled by this latest re-announcement that’ll come to nothing? B Johnson is the eternal campaigner proclaiming meaningless slogans around the country several days a week. The hard unglamorous grind of policy implementation and consequences of bad policy bore him https://twitter.com/peston/status/1534917117035827201
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army. The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.
I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?
The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die
And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”
The rules are for protecting non-combatants whether civilians or soldiers who become injured or POWs.
A distinct advantage for each side is that they can expect their lost POWs to receive the same treatment as the ones they have captured.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Ed Davey has already suggested a temporary VAT cut, FWIW.
We were told that one of the benefits of leaving the EU would be we could scrap VAT on domestic fuel. It strikes me now would be the perfect time to put that into practice.
VAT was always originally supposed to be about discretionary spend anyway. Hence the reason things like food were exempt. Major should never have introduced it on domestic fuel and we should now take the opportunity to get rid of it permanently.
I know it's a by-election, but the Lib Dems might be able to take back every SW seat they had in 1997 with change if Boris tries to lead the Tories into another GE.
I expect a landslide in both seats against Boris, but I do not see an immediate coup but it is coming hopefully in time for conference
I am Conservative but would vote Yorkshire Party if I was in Wakefield 👍
Do you remember how confident you were about the Tories holding Wandsworth?
We've all pissed a lot of water under the bridge since then...
Under Wandsworth bridge? I might have seen you guys doing that, I have gone or come back that way a lot recently. 🤭
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army. The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.
I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?
The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die
And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”
Then even if I agree with you (I don't) you need said rules to encourage the opposition to surrender. If you know you're GOING to die either way, then why surrender.
A rumour spread during the Bulge that the Germans weren't taking prisoners (they sort of weren't - they had to move fast) and there was a small massacre by SS against American POWS, but one survived and got away. After that, US troops stopped surrendering and fought far more tenaciously because if you're going to die, might as well die fighting.
But also shows a startling lack of conviction about any other candidate from every single sub sample. Not a single individual (of any party) in the whole of national politics has real popular backing, sympathy or support.
Not necessary to win an election, as BoJo proved. Just be less unpopular than the other guy.
In a sense BoJo has become Corbyn and Starmer has become BoJo
Boris wasn't unpopular in 2019.
For a PM, he wasn't that popular in 2019. See this rather poigniant graph from Mori;
and he's drifted down since then. He's not dead yet, but he needs something to turn things around.
Johnson is a lucky general sometimes, especially in his choice of opponents.
Will Tory MPs be fooled by this latest re-announcement that’ll come to nothing? B Johnson is the eternal campaigner proclaiming meaningless slogans around the country several days a week. The hard unglamorous grind of policy implementation and consequences of bad policy bore him https://twitter.com/peston/status/1534917117035827201
And Nadine can't privatise ITV in retaliation for that comment!!
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army. The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.
I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?
The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die
And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”
The reason for the Geneva Convention, is to be able to put the likes of Putin on trial afterwards.
Putin is an evil man, but he can quite rightly point to our hypocrisy and say What about Afghanistan? What about Iraq? Shock and Awe? Was that within ‘the rules’?
Vietnam? The bombing of Laos? Agent Orange? And so on, and so forth
Would Blair and Bush survive a trial in, say, Beijing, under the auspices of the Geneva Convention? I’m not at all sure they would. It is arguable they are guilty. And as for Kissinger carpet bombing neutral Cambodia and Laos. Killing tens of thousands, destabilising entire countries, kicking off the ‘Khmer Rouge. UGH
Let’s face it, we like the “Geneva Convention” when it suits us, and we simply ignore it when it doesn’t
“The Geneva Convention” isn’t really one thing. There’s several Geneva Conventions and the stuff you’re thinking of was agreed after the War because of the War. They are all about the treatment of uniformed enemy soldiers and non-combatants. It’s the “don’t just shoot your prisoners” stuff.
The Laws of Armed Conflict covering the use of weapons are largely derived from The Hague conventions and focus on proportionality. So mass bombing was ok when precision bombing wasn’t possible, but wouldn’t be now. They do have some oddities though - you can’t blind your enemy but you can kill them*. Would you rather me blinded or head? Either stops you firing a machine gun.
Will Tory MPs be fooled by this latest re-announcement that’ll come to nothing? B Johnson is the eternal campaigner proclaiming meaningless slogans around the country several days a week. The hard unglamorous grind of policy implementation and consequences of bad policy bore him https://twitter.com/peston/status/1534917117035827201
Echoes of the “you don’t just pull a lever and it happens”.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Ed Davey has already suggested a temporary VAT cut, FWIW.
We were told that one of the benefits of leaving the EU would be we could scrap VAT on domestic fuel. It strikes me now would be the perfect time to put that into practice.
VAT was always originally supposed to be about discretionary spend anyway. Hence the reason things like food were exempt. Major should never have introduced it on domestic fuel and we should now take the opportunity to get rid of it permanently.
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.
Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.
(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)
Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
It’s basically doubled what we normally spend on petrol?
Alternatively, go for an election, lose it, leave Labour to screw up the economy and come back in five years
The medium-term optimal result for the Tories at the next election is to get most votes and seats but not a majority, Labour at least 20 seats behind, and Labour cobble together a coalition of all the losers.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. Which feeds back to the comments of a certain Mr Cummings, from a few months ago, that “Government By Carrie” was the problem.
The Net Zero crap needs to be dropped while there’s a war in Ukraine. But no-one has the guts to say it.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I truly think we'd be much better off if we had no PM at all. Just a void would be preferable. Similar level of grip and direction and we wouldn't have to listen to him. Take to your bed Boris!
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army. The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.
I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?
The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die
And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”
Then even if I agree with you (I don't) you need said rules to encourage the opposition to surrender. If you know you're GOING to die either way, then why surrender.
A rumour spread during the Bulge that the Germans weren't taking prisoners (they sort of weren't - they had to move fast) and there was a small massacre by SS against American POWS, but one survived and got away. After that, US troops stopped surrendering and fought far more tenaciously because if you're going to die, might as well die fighting.
You don’t need some absurd “Convention” to enforce this. It is a natural function of war, known for thousands of years. If you treat encircled, defeated, and surrendering enemy with a certain mercy, they are much more likely to surrender in future. If you get a reputation for killing everyone you can, then everyone that fights you will fight to the end, so total cruelty is often self-defeating
I find the idea there is some holy book containing the polite “rules of war” borderline offensive. Like war is OK if it is done “properly”. It is never OK, it is at best a necessary and horrific evil
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.
Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.
(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)
Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.
Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).
I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.
Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.
(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)
Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.
Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).
I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.
Tesla are offering 8-year battery warranties, but there are horror stories of (last-generation) batteries failing just outside that time. Awesome if it fails just inside though. It does make one think twice about a second-hand one though, which may be really close to the original retail price at three years old, but could be worth very little at six or seven.
Today's policy announcements, such as they are, are just the continuation of a haphazard, scattergun approach to policy development. If I were a Tory, I would despair at the absence of an overarching policy direction, a metanarrative if you like, around which a coherent range of policies is developed. Instead, it's just a list of random policies cast out in the hope that they will have populist appeal. If they don't have such appeal, they're quietly dropped. If they do have appeal, they are implemented in a half-baked manner.
Of course "levelling-up" should be, and maybe claims to be, the metanarrative, but so far that still hasn't really made much progress apart from providing a source of soundbites.
(Before anyone says it, I'm well aware that Labour has yet to present anything that constitutes a coherent policy platform).
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
A significant number of journeys are completely price inelastic but some journeys (leisure) will be cut back on.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
The criticisms of the US healthcare system are not related to the treatment of CEOs. If you have top level insurance in the US, you have the best healthcare in the world.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
One counterexample does not render a statement including the phrase "most people" invalid.
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army. The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.
I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?
The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die
And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”
The reason for the Geneva Convention, is to be able to put the likes of Putin on trial afterwards.
Putin is an evil man, but he can quite rightly point to our hypocrisy and say What about Afghanistan? What about Iraq? Shock and Awe? Was that within ‘the rules’?
Vietnam? The bombing of Laos? Agent Orange? And so on, and so forth
Would Blair and Bush survive a trial in, say, Beijing, under the auspices of the Geneva Convention? I’m not at all sure they would. It is arguable they are guilty. And as for Kissinger carpet bombing neutral Cambodia and Laos. Killing tens of thousands, destabilising entire countries, kicking off the Khmer Rouge. UGH
Let’s face it, we like the “Geneva Convention” when it suits us, and we simply ignore it when it doesn’t
No person or country is perfect. Even I, although I come close, am not.
I am sure that Putin genuinely believed that the Ukrainians wanted to be a part of Russia. He will have convinced himself that they are one people, and that they would welcome his troops with open arms, and be relieved to rid themselves of their "Nazi" leaders.
That this view coincides with his manifest destiny* as the leader who would return Russia to the greatness that it rightly deserves is just a happy coincidence.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
I really do hope that SKS and labour decide that now is the time to introduce a wealth tax. Ideally they will also bin council tax at the same time but something does need to be done.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment
The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases
You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
Don’t you live in Hampstead? Driving in NW3 is a nightmare. Parking is worse.
Owning a car in central or central-ish London is quite hard to justify, unless you have small children. And I speak as someone who has a car, which costs me loads. And often it just sits there. And the kids are no longer small
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.
Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.
(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)
Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.
Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).
I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.
PCP is effectively leasing it although you have the option to pay the balance at the end of the term. In reality, you might be better to swap it for a new one, although at least you get the option.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
The criticisms of the US healthcare system are not related to the treatment of CEOs. If you have top level insurance in the US, you have the best healthcare in the world.
The really worrying thing about US healthcare is that Medicare costs as much (per capita) as the NHS does and yet provides a limited service for a limited number of people.
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.
Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.
(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)
Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.
Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).
I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.
Tesla are offering 8-year battery warranties, but there are horror stories of (last-generation) batteries failing just outside that time. Awesome if it fails just inside though. It does make one think twice about a second-hand one though, which may be really close to the original retail price at three years old, but could be worth very little at six or seven.
If I was going to buy a new electric vehicle right now, I think I'd get the Hyundia Ioniq 5.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
One counterexample does not render a statement including the phrase "most people" invalid.
It's what happens to aggregate demand that matters, so if there are some people whose use is discretionary then demand in aggregate is not price inelastic. The margins are where the price is set.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes, and it's worth remembering that Labour will be seeking to persuade Green voters to vote tactically at the next GE. Spending money to lower petrol prices wouldn't help with this.
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.
Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.
(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)
Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.
Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).
I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.
Tesla are offering 8-year battery warranties, but there are horror stories of (last-generation) batteries failing just outside that time. Awesome if it fails just inside though. It does make one think twice about a second-hand one though, which may be really close to the original retail price at three years old, but could be worth very little at six or seven.
If I was going to buy a new electric vehicle right now, I think I'd get the Hyundia Ioniq 5.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Ed Davey has already suggested a temporary VAT cut, FWIW.
We were told that one of the benefits of leaving the EU would be we could scrap VAT on domestic fuel. It strikes me now would be the perfect time to put that into practice.
VAT was always originally supposed to be about discretionary spend anyway. Hence the reason things like food were exempt. Major should never have introduced it on domestic fuel and we should now take the opportunity to get rid of it permanently.
Johnson's problem is the same as Major's.
They need the money.
Public expenditure of all sorts is about £1.1 tn. That's £17,000 pa per man, woman and child in the UK. Only about 10% of it is borrowed so that our grandchildren can pay it off for us - thank you. The rest comes from somewhere. You can't cut taxes without raising other taxes (which) cutting expenditure (what) or borrowing off your grandchildren even more (the interest payments are already most of what we borrow...)
The discussion needs to look at the whole picture. But no BBC news programme is complete without one or more calls for increased public expenditure. And a call for tax cuts from someone.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
The criticisms of the US healthcare system are not related to the treatment of CEOs. If you have top level insurance in the US, you have the best healthcare in the world.
Yes, the eye witness account of the frontline of US healthcare from…. a multi-millionaire businessman living in one of the most agreeable districts of Southern California lacks a certain impactfulness
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
I guess some people will drive almost regardless of the cost, but it definitely makes you think more about it. One of the interesting changes is that some long distance journeys are now competitive by train, if you are travelling alone. Previously, cars were almost always significantly cheaper.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
One counterexample does not render a statement including the phrase "most people" invalid.
It's what happens to aggregate demand that matters, so if there are some people whose use is discretionary then demand in aggregate is not price inelastic. The margins are where the price is set.
In which case we should see fuel prices in London and other major cities end up lower than those in the majority of the country that relies on car use.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment
The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases
You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers
I thought it was the track workers not the drivers?
My car has not moved from the street since Saturday.
The other day I biked to run a local errand I would normally drive, and it was notably quicker. By the time I have factored in faffing around finding somewhere to park, any marginal gain from the car is lost – with change. Interesting discovery.
By Elections: if held now would predict Wakefield Labour to win by 8-10,000, Tiverton Lib Dems to win by 10-15,000!!¬!
I predict a Tory majority of around 2,000 in Tiverton, down from a majority of 24,000, which the Tories will proclaim to be a massive victory. There is a lot of expectation management going on here.
At 6/1 I'm upping my stake on the Tories taking it, albeit narrowly.
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment
The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases
You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers
HMG can pay its workers a decent wage by extracting more in taxes from those who can afford it - rather than the fat albatross spouting lame excuses about wage-price spirals. It's not complicated.
HMG won't do it because it is presently in the hands of a party that exists to represent only the needs of the already comfortable, not because it's impossible.
Mrs Biggles has spoken. As someone who previously had some time for Boris, “Partygate” has seen her leave him and today’s announcements have driven her further away. In my experience of the last few elections, as she goes so goes the nation.
I still think he COULD turn it around with a suddenly improved economic situation based on a Ukrainian victory and a Biden stoked boom, but increasingly I think his time is up and it’ll be the next guy who benefits if anyone does.
Alternatively, go for an election, lose it, leave Labour to screw up the economy and come back in five years
The medium-term optimal result for the Tories at the next election is to get most votes and seats but not a majority, Labour at least 20 seats behind, and Labour cobble together a coalition of all the losers.
If Labour are only 20 seats behind they might well be popular vote winners. The new boundaries, designed by Professor Jeremy Mander, should see to that.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
The criticisms of the US healthcare system are not related to the treatment of CEOs. If you have top level insurance in the US, you have the best healthcare in the world.
Yes, the eye witness account of the frontline of US healthcare from…. a multi-millionaire businessman living in one of the most agreeable districts of Southern California lacks a certain impactfulness
The US government bought millions of doses of Paxlovid, with the consequence that pretty much *anyone* can get a prescription if they catch Covid.
The speed of my doctor's appointment may be a consequence of my insurance, but the rapid prescribing of a drug that will likely cut my recovery down to days is a consequence of decent Federal purchasing.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
I guess some people will drive almost regardless of the cost, but it definitely makes you think more about it. One of the interesting changes is that some long distance journeys are now competitive by train, if you are travelling alone. Previously, cars were almost always significantly cheaper.
This is one reason why governments in some other countries (Ireland, Germany) have responded by cutting public transport fares.
It should encourage those who can use public transport instead to do so, thereby reducing overall demand for fuel.
If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.
It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.
What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.
Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.
(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)
Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.
Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).
I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.
Tesla are offering 8-year battery warranties, but there are horror stories of (last-generation) batteries failing just outside that time. Awesome if it fails just inside though. It does make one think twice about a second-hand one though, which may be really close to the original retail price at three years old, but could be worth very little at six or seven.
If I was going to buy a new electric vehicle right now, I think I'd get the Hyundia Ioniq 5.
Is Reform being prompted for? Fascinating if not, and people remember they exist. In any case, I doubt they’ll stand in anything like all constituencies next time.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
The criticisms of the US healthcare system are not related to the treatment of CEOs. If you have top level insurance in the US, you have the best healthcare in the world.
Yes, the eye witness account of the frontline of US healthcare from…. a multi-millionaire businessman living in one of the most agreeable districts of Southern California lacks a certain impactfulness
The US government bought millions of doses of Paxlovid, with the consequence that pretty much *anyone* can get a prescription if they catch Covid.
The speed of my doctor's appointment may be a consequence of my insurance, but the rapid prescribing of a drug that will likely cut my recovery down to days is a consequence of decent Federal purchasing.
In much of Europe it is rationed to the unvaxxed and/or immuno compromised.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
I really do hope that SKS and labour decide that now is the time to introduce a wealth tax. Ideally they will also bin council tax at the same time but something does need to be done.
It should certainly implement a shift away from taxation of earned incomes and toward the taxation of assets. Higher taxes on capital gains (including on the sale of primary residences,) sumptuary taxation of second homes and a large expansion in the levying of death duties are also desirable.
Just to throw an extra idea out there, I would crack down on companies that pay out fat dividends to shareholders whilst imposing real terms pay cuts on their employees. Wage settlements below the rate of inflation should mean no goodies for the owners.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
The criticisms of the US healthcare system are not related to the treatment of CEOs. If you have top level insurance in the US, you have the best healthcare in the world.
Yes, the eye witness account of the frontline of US healthcare from…. a multi-millionaire businessman living in one of the most agreeable districts of Southern California lacks a certain impactfulness
The US government bought millions of doses of Paxlovid, with the consequence that pretty much *anyone* can get a prescription if they catch Covid.
The speed of my doctor's appointment may be a consequence of my insurance, but the rapid prescribing of a drug that will likely cut my recovery down to days is a consequence of decent Federal purchasing.
Where would you be if you had no insurance RCS?
Genuinely curious, as I know as much about health care in the US as the average American knows about the NHS.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.
I guess some people will drive almost regardless of the cost, but it definitely makes you think more about it. One of the interesting changes is that some long distance journeys are now competitive by train, if you are travelling alone. Previously, cars were almost always significantly cheaper.
This is one reason why governments in some other countries (Ireland, Germany) have responded by cutting public transport fares.
It should encourage those who can use public transport instead to do so, thereby reducing overall demand for fuel.
That makes for a few people changing behaviour at the margin, and for personal travel, but still leaves millions of people who can’t choose not to drive to work. The cost of dropping fuel duty is tiny in the grand scheme of things right now.
Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.
Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though. There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine. Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.
Don’t you live in Hampstead? Driving in NW3 is a nightmare. Parking is worse.
Owning a car in central or central-ish London is quite hard to justify, unless you have small children. And I speak as someone who has a car, which costs me loads. And often it just sits there. And the kids are no longer small
Hmpft
Ha! No. I live in the far-flung northern suburbs, not quite as glamorous as NW3. However, it's probably not much better here than there.
Is Reform being prompted for? Fascinating if so, and people remember they exist. In any case, I doubt they’ll stand in anything like all constituencies next time.
Not sure tbh, but R and W pretty solidly in the 32 to 34 vs 38 to 40 range now with the odd outlier. The background levels seem pretty set, could do with seeing a comres to see if that 11 lead was a one off Get the sense there is a slight but not dramatic so far drift down for tories
Is Reform being prompted for? Fascinating if not, and people remember they exist. In any case, I doubt they’ll stand in anything like all constituencies next time.
If they are prompting for them, I wonder if people know who they are? The people saying they would vote for them might think they are indicating support for PR and devolution.
All midterm nonsense, yet heading towards the magical 10pt gap that @HYUFD considers the trigger for Boriscide.
Can't come soon enough.
No point in a deeply unpopular leader announcing popular policies. They'll just bank the popular stuff, say thanks and go vote for the other guy who isn't a liar. Even one as despairingly dull as Starmer.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment
The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases
You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers
No, it is not true that "everyone across the western world is going to be poorer". The very rich will not be poorer. They never are. They are the strongest, not the unions.
Alternatively, go for an election, lose it, leave Labour to screw up the economy and come back in five years
The medium-term optimal result for the Tories at the next election is to get most votes and seats but not a majority, Labour at least 20 seats behind, and Labour cobble together a coalition of all the losers.
If Labour are only 20 seats behind they might well be popular vote winners. The new boundaries, designed by Professor Jeremy Mander, should see to that.
Though that said, an underwhelming Labour performance would probably be helpful, just so long as the Tories are reduced to below about 290 seats and therefore have no chance of forming another Government that can command confidence.
In short, the more dependent Labour is on other parties, the further it is from the prospect of ever winning another majority under FPTP, and the more potent the threat of the Tories winning the election after next, so the more likely Labour is to cave to demands from other players for electoral reform.
PR is desirable, not only in terms of creating a more representative Parliament but also for another crucial reason. The likelihood of the country being forced into another choice between two woefully unsuitable and polarising candidates for Prime Minister, as it was in 2019, would be greatly reduced.
Is Reform being prompted for? Fascinating if so, and people remember they exist. In any case, I doubt they’ll stand in anything like all constituencies next time.
Not sure tbh, but R and W pretty solidly in the 32 to 34 vs 38 to 40 range now with the odd outlier. The background levels seem pretty set, could do with seeing a comres to see if that 11 lead was a one off Get the sense there is a slight but not dramatic so far drift down for tories
45-30 now looks possible as a statistical fluke if nothing else, certainly.
By Elections: if held now would predict Wakefield Labour to win by 8-10,000, Tiverton Lib Dems to win by 10-15,000!!¬!
I predict a Tory majority of around 2,000 in Tiverton, down from a majority of 24,000, which the Tories will proclaim to be a massive victory. There is a lot of expectation management going on here.
At 6/1 I'm upping my stake on the Tories taking it, albeit narrowly.
They're certainly attractive odds for any non-Tory, creating a nice win-win of either a catastrophic Tory defeat or a cash return of 500% in a fortnight.
Yes, I don't think Bozza was initially clear that levelling up is about enhancing London's prospects and those of Northern Ireland – two key units of the union that have been maligned for too long. More power to his elbow.
Is Reform being prompted for? Fascinating if so, and people remember they exist. In any case, I doubt they’ll stand in anything like all constituencies next time.
Not sure tbh, but R and W pretty solidly in the 32 to 34 vs 38 to 40 range now with the odd outlier. The background levels seem pretty set, could do with seeing a comres to see if that 11 lead was a one off Get the sense there is a slight but not dramatic so far drift down for tories
45-30 now looks possible as a statistical fluke if nothing else, certainly.
Yes, id say so. 30 certainly. Im less sure korma chameleon has a 45 in him
Ignoring the crimes against grammar, imagine the situation where the UK was still in the EU, but with QMV on everything, and with pre-agreed Franco-German and Eurozone positions on everything, before the meeting took place.
This was always the direction in which things were moving, and why the decision was to be either all the way in, or all the way out.
By Elections: if held now would predict Wakefield Labour to win by 8-10,000, Tiverton Lib Dems to win by 10-15,000!!¬!
I predict a Tory majority of around 2,000 in Tiverton, down from a majority of 24,000, which the Tories will proclaim to be a massive victory. There is a lot of expectation management going on here.
At 6/1 I'm upping my stake on the Tories taking it, albeit narrowly.
They're certainly attractive odds for any non-Tory, creating a nice win-win of either a catastrophic Tory defeat or a cash return of 500% in a fortnight.
2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.
They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army. The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.
I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?
The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die
And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”
Then even if I agree with you (I don't) you need said rules to encourage the opposition to surrender. If you know you're GOING to die either way, then why surrender.
A rumour spread during the Bulge that the Germans weren't taking prisoners (they sort of weren't - they had to move fast) and there was a small massacre by SS against American POWS, but one survived and got away. After that, US troops stopped surrendering and fought far more tenaciously because if you're going to die, might as well die fighting.
After initial shock, American troops began to rally and fight back, some better than others.
One notable example: the 18 soldiers in USA reconnaissance platoon who held up 500 German paratroopers at Losheim Gap for about a day, thus significantly disrupting the Nazi timetable.
Also, while news of the Malmedy Massacre did help stiffen US Army resistance, it also meant that GIs took fewer German prisoners afterwards than perhaps they might have. Esp. Waffen SS.
You know, I criticise the US health system a lot (for its insane bureaucracy), but they can move really quick.
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
The criticisms of the US healthcare system are not related to the treatment of CEOs. If you have top level insurance in the US, you have the best healthcare in the world.
Yes, the eye witness account of the frontline of US healthcare from…. a multi-millionaire businessman living in one of the most agreeable districts of Southern California lacks a certain impactfulness
The US government bought millions of doses of Paxlovid, with the consequence that pretty much *anyone* can get a prescription if they catch Covid.
The speed of my doctor's appointment may be a consequence of my insurance, but the rapid prescribing of a drug that will likely cut my recovery down to days is a consequence of decent Federal purchasing.
In much of Europe it is rationed to the unvaxxed and/or immuno compromised.
Yep, it's been underbought by European (and Asian) governments.
I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.
A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.
But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.
The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.
They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.
Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.
It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.
The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.
Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.
The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.
People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.
The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".
I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
I really do hope that SKS and labour decide that now is the time to introduce a wealth tax. Ideally they will also bin council tax at the same time but something does need to be done.
It should certainly implement a shift away from taxation of earned incomes and toward the taxation of assets. Higher taxes on capital gains (including on the sale of primary residences,) sumptuary taxation of second homes and a large expansion in the levying of death duties are also desirable.
Just to throw an extra idea out there, I would crack down on companies that pay out fat dividends to shareholders whilst imposing real terms pay cuts on their employees. Wage settlements below the rate of inflation should mean no goodies for the owners.
Anyone who goes near a tax on the sale of private property will not see power
The other problem of attacking shares and dividends is they make up most peoples pension portfolio which 8f attacked will be equally unpopular
There is a reason this has not been touched before though a moderation in IHT allowances and a wealth tax time has come
Is Reform being prompted for? Fascinating if so, and people remember they exist. In any case, I doubt they’ll stand in anything like all constituencies next time.
Not sure tbh, but R and W pretty solidly in the 32 to 34 vs 38 to 40 range now with the odd outlier. The background levels seem pretty set, could do with seeing a comres to see if that 11 lead was a one off Get the sense there is a slight but not dramatic so far drift down for tories
45-30 now looks possible as a statistical fluke if nothing else, certainly.
Yes, id say so. 30 certainly. Im less sure korma chameleon has a 45 in him
Comments
You’re going to have to hold your nose and vote Starmer, Owls!
There is no possible date left in 2022 now that wouldn't involve massive risk.
Summer hols or so close to it as to disrupt all the sports days (for the first time in three years)? - Not happening. The Con vote would collapse.
After the summer? Nawh. Too cold, too wet, painted as desperate (Brenda from Bristol is on the line) and nothing is going to get better between now and Christmas.
He won't risk it. The time for a 'normal' GE was back in May.
Absent a political crisis, the next time for one is now next year.
Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.
All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.
Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.
And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.
I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.
And the voters love having Winston Churchill back. Don’t count your chickens yet, he hasn’t lost his majority yet.
There will be at least 10m, probably closer to 20m people today, using their cars to work. The cost of petrol is completely irrelevant to their decision to buy it, and if the price goes up too much they cut down on everything else on which they spend money. Or they quit their job, and claim benefits.
Vietnam? The bombing of Laos? Agent Orange? And so on, and so forth
Would Blair and Bush survive a trial in, say, Beijing, under the auspices of the Geneva Convention? I’m not at all sure they would. It is arguable they are guilty. And as for Kissinger carpet bombing neutral Cambodia and Laos. Killing tens of thousands, destabilising entire countries, kicking off the Khmer Rouge. UGH
Let’s face it, we like the “Geneva Convention” when it suits us, and we simply ignore it when it doesn’t
There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine.
Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.
A distinct advantage for each side is that they can expect their lost POWs to receive the same treatment as the ones they have captured.
VAT was always originally supposed to be about discretionary spend anyway. Hence the reason things like food were exempt. Major should never have introduced it on domestic fuel and we should now take the opportunity to get rid of it permanently.
If you know you're GOING to die either way, then why surrender.
A rumour spread during the Bulge that the Germans weren't taking prisoners (they sort of weren't - they had to move fast) and there was a small massacre by SS against American POWS, but one survived and got away.
After that, US troops stopped surrendering and fought far more tenaciously because if you're going to die, might as well die fighting.
and he's drifted down since then. He's not dead yet, but he needs something to turn things around.
Johnson is a lucky general sometimes, especially in his choice of opponents.
If it is true that he asked Truss to cut her staff and she replied with an increase, then he really is in office, not in power.
Which probably suits him fine
The Laws of Armed Conflict covering the use of weapons are largely derived from The Hague conventions and focus on proportionality. So mass bombing was ok when precision bombing wasn’t possible, but wouldn’t be now. They do have some oddities though - you can’t blind your enemy but you can kill them*. Would you rather me blinded or head? Either stops you firing a machine gun.
*We had to stop using a laser dazzler.
They need the money.
For how long for is the question though?
The Net Zero crap needs to be dropped while there’s a war in Ukraine. But no-one has the guts to say it.
Asda are selling unleaded for 176.7p/l here in the WM. Everyone else, close by is 184p+
Odd business decision.
I find the idea there is some holy book containing the polite “rules of war” borderline offensive. Like war is OK if it is done “properly”. It is never OK, it is at best a necessary and horrific evil
I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.
The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.
We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.
EU'LL NEVER BELIEVE IT Boris promises cheaper household gas bills if Brits back Brexit
BORIS Johnson and Michael Gove today promise to scrap VAT on household energy bills if Britain backs a Brexit.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1218703/boris-promises-cheaper-household-gas-bills-if-brits-back-brexit/
Today I tested positive for Covid, got a video call with a doctor organised for an hour later, and now just need to go pick up my Paxlovid prescription.
Of course "levelling-up" should be, and maybe claims to be, the metanarrative, but so far that still hasn't really made much progress apart from providing a source of soundbites.
(Before anyone says it, I'm well aware that Labour has yet to present anything that constitutes a coherent policy platform).
I am sure that Putin genuinely believed that the Ukrainians wanted to be a part of Russia. He will have convinced himself that they are one people, and that they would welcome his troops with open arms, and be relieved to rid themselves of their "Nazi" leaders.
That this view coincides with his manifest destiny* as the leader who would return Russia to the greatness that it rightly deserves is just a happy coincidence.
* In his mind
The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases
You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers
Owning a car in central or central-ish London is quite hard to justify, unless you have small children. And I speak as someone who has a car, which costs me loads. And often it just sits there. And the kids are no longer small
Hmpft
The discussion needs to look at the whole picture. But no BBC news programme is complete without one or more calls for increased public expenditure. And a call for tax cuts from someone.
Levelling up in action, again.
The other day I biked to run a local errand I would normally drive, and it was notably quicker. By the time I have factored in faffing around finding somewhere to park, any marginal gain from the car is lost – with change. Interesting discovery.
At 6/1 I'm upping my stake on the Tories taking it, albeit narrowly.
HMG won't do it because it is presently in the hands of a party that exists to represent only the needs of the already comfortable, not because it's impossible.
I still think he COULD turn it around with a suddenly improved economic situation based on a Ukrainian victory and a Biden stoked boom, but increasingly I think his time is up and it’ll be the next guy who benefits if anyone does.
The speed of my doctor's appointment may be a consequence of my insurance, but the rapid prescribing of a drug that will likely cut my recovery down to days is a consequence of decent Federal purchasing.
Labour 40% (+2)
Conservative 32% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 13% (+2)
Green 5% (+2)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Other 2% (-1)
Changes +/- 5 June
https://t.co/rtfGoXeO6b https://t.co/Vayt1WEeyB
Small movement post dog rescue
It should encourage those who can use public transport instead to do so, thereby reducing overall demand for fuel.
Just to throw an extra idea out there, I would crack down on companies that pay out fat dividends to shareholders whilst imposing real terms pay cuts on their employees. Wage settlements below the rate of inflation should mean no goodies for the owners.
Genuinely curious, as I know as much about health care in the US as the average American knows about the NHS.
Europe is not fit for the world of tomorrow.
Only a European Union without veto’s can survive !
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1534804165326737408
The background levels seem pretty set, could do with seeing a comres to see if that 11 lead was a one off
Get the sense there is a slight but not dramatic so far drift down for tories
All midterm nonsense, yet heading towards the magical 10pt gap that @HYUFD considers the trigger for Boriscide.
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1534808388319727616?s=21&t=t2NrkFtz1S7sdIZpLY0G2w
No point in a deeply unpopular leader announcing popular policies. They'll just bank the popular stuff, say thanks and go vote for the other guy who isn't a liar. Even one as despairingly dull as Starmer.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/09/google_100_trillion_digits_of_pi/
In short, the more dependent Labour is on other parties, the further it is from the prospect of ever winning another majority under FPTP, and the more potent the threat of the Tories winning the election after next, so the more likely Labour is to cave to demands from other players for electoral reform.
PR is desirable, not only in terms of creating a more representative Parliament but also for another crucial reason. The likelihood of the country being forced into another choice between two woefully unsuitable and polarising candidates for Prime Minister, as it was in 2019, would be greatly reduced.
This was always the direction in which things were moving, and why the decision was to be either all the way in, or all the way out.
π
One notable example: the 18 soldiers in USA reconnaissance platoon who held up 500 German paratroopers at Losheim Gap for about a day, thus significantly disrupting the Nazi timetable.
Also, while news of the Malmedy Massacre did help stiffen US Army resistance, it also meant that GIs took fewer German prisoners afterwards than perhaps they might have. Esp. Waffen SS.
The other problem of attacking shares and dividends is they make up most peoples pension portfolio which 8f attacked will be equally unpopular
There is a reason this has not been touched before though a moderation in IHT allowances and a wealth tax time has come