A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.
I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.
Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.
But bad drives out good.
We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.
It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.
This, I think, is what will kill off small charities reliant on volunteer leadership.
yeah hmrc are forcing them all to register for vat / corporation tax too at which point I'd be noping out
One of the medium sized charities told the government that this is “rationalisation” of the charity sector.
Same charity is about to be done for grotesque violations of just about all the rules.
Name and shame as there must be far more than just one.
The formal complaints are in, with the charity commission. I’ve been asked not to name them, by the complainants. Until the Private Eye story on it comes out.
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
It is solely for first time buyers and is the kind of incentive I could see Kemi being attracted to
Kemi sensibly proposed abolishing Stamp Duty instead
You can do both
Kemi has already led the way on student loans with a government committee now to review them, and she is correct to look at everything around NEETS and helping young people
Pensioners have had too much emphasis, and time to help the young and those striving to make a success of their lives
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
"those with no connection to economic reality"
That's essentially all of the political class in every country.
We've got Javier Milei and Mark Carney who are in rock throwing distance of reality. And that's about it.
Yes though they are very different. Carney, having worked inside the economic establishment, at Goldman Sachs, then twice as a central banker, will have two characteristics: he will never stray far from the "official" Treasury or central bank view, and he will always consider the short or medium term favourable reaction of the bond markets as the ultimate criterion of economic success. That's what central bankers generally do, just as pure politicians think that getting a bit of attention leading to a couple of points bump in the opinion polls is the sign of a successful policy. He also has relatively little experience of supply side problems.
Milei on the other hand is an academic, and will be free to think about much more long term, radically and about supply side issues. He will be willing to experience short term pain when he knows he is right.
I think Carney's much more conservative (small c) approach would have been OK when things are going well, as in this country in the mid- and late-90s, but what we need much more now than competent demand management are radical supply side reforms. So my vote would be for Milei.
Carney would do no more than manage our decline a bit more competently. With Milei we'd have a good chance of reversing it.
If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .
Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .
Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .
Apparently Trump has told Iran to open the Straights of Hormuz or he will destroy the oil facilities on Kharg island
High stakes, and two irrational and irresponsible leaders out of control
I don't think Iran are being irrational at all, they are playing a shit hand well.
Nor can we be certain that Iran is being lead by "a leader", irrational or otherwise. More likely a group behind the figure head are actually making decisions. Mojtaba may even be dead. Plenty of analysis saying the IRGC are running things or acting independently.
As the war in europe ended there was situation where not quite clear to the allies who would be doing the surrendering or negotiation. iirc Himmler went off to Sweden to try and find a way out that benefited him for example.
I think that various groups within the IRGC are running things. In vague collaboration.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...
Something they're already doing.
Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.
Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.
I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.
Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.
The regime is hated, but they have the military.
Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.
Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.
There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.
US military action has cost over $11.3 billion so far. The US could just have offered every Iranian armed forces serviceman $18,500 instead.
Would probably have worked, too.
Lincoln suggested* buying out the Southern slaveholders, late in the Civil War. Because the monetary cost would be less than finishing it militarily. And with lots less dead people.
*some say this was just, politically, to prove that he was open to negotiations. And so keep political support for the war.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
The empathy for their peers is a variant on self interest.
See the comments on Mandy by C. Blair.
To the NU10Kers, Poor Peter is a proper chap. Who got caught. Which is an annoyance. Toxic now, but as soon as we can we will do something for him.
With their home airport out of bounds, Qatar Airways has operated a couple of flights overnight from Thailand to Manchester. How many passengers on board is an interesting question.
Loads of cranks at Manchester to see the A380 that has just landed.
Love an A380, on my constitutional yesterday evening, the Emirates big bird from Dubai into the last 20 odd miles towards Manchester Airport came over just a couple of hundred yards to my left. My taxi timings were such a year or two back that, as I headed out into the valleys in a Manchester ward direction, it would often overtake me, apparently following the stream of a particularly pastoral tributary of the Holme and seemingly just hanging there but still stretching into the distance and the moorlands. A contrast from the overhead in the terraces of central Hyde, much louder, much lower, similarly impressive but with a very different vibe.
A380
Pro_Rata: 100+ words of lyrical anecdote, placing the aircraft at a known point with detail to place, time, and feel. Viewcode: BIG PLANE! PLANE GO BIG!
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
"those with no connection to economic reality"
That's essentially all of the political class in every country.
We've got Javier Milei and Mark Carney who are in rock throwing distance of reality. And that's about it.
Yes though they are very different. Carney, having worked inside the economic establishment, at Goldman Sachs, then twice as a central banker, will have two characteristics: he will never stray far from the "official" Treasury or central bank view, and he will always consider the short or medium term favourable reaction of the bond markets as the ultimate criterion of economic success. That's what central bankers generally do, just as pure politicians think that getting a bit of attention leading to a couple of points bump in the opinion polls is the sign of a successful policy. He also has relatively little experience of supply side problems.
Milei on the other hand is an academic, and will be free to think about much more long term, radically and about supply side issues. He will be willing to experience short term pain when he knows he is right.
I think Carney's much more conservative (small c) approach would have been OK when things are going well, as in this country in the mid- and late-90s, but what we need much more now than competent demand management are radical supply side reforms. So my vote would be for Milei.
Carney would do no more than manage our decline a bit more competently. With Milei we'd have a good chance of reversing it.
They are closer than you think. Milei, under the populist stuff is enacting anti-populist policies. Pretty much classic IMF-shrink-the-state-to-match-the-tax-base stuff.
His denunciation of tariffs is worth watching - shows how a “populist” politician can proudly sell an honest economic argument to his followers.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...
Something they're already doing.
Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.
Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.
I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.
Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.
The regime is hated, but they have the military.
Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.
Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.
There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.
If the IRGC is the kind of outfit we think it is (and I think their slaughter of tens of thousands of protestors is incontrevtible proof of that), they aren't going waiver in the face of a little financial hardship.
A revolution would be absolutely disastrous for them because ordinary Iranians will do them like the Italians did Mussolini. There is no circumstance in which they will simply give up.
That may be true for the upper leadership, who may be pressured to flee the country if they lose their grasp.
For the grunts who are expected to pull the trigger on any protestors?
Precedent is widespread that failing to pay them collapses the options for regime survival.
We shall see. I just think the example of a country like Ukraine, living though unimaginable hardship this winter and with tens of thousands dead and maimed, would suggest this isn't as simple as you might think.
Who said simple?
The difference is the Ukrainian public is behind the Ukrainian government and wants Ukraine to survive.
The difference is Ukraine gets a river of money from the EU/UK as broad and as deep as the Dnepr. Without that, the regime would have caved in a long time ago.
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
It is solely for first time buyers and is the kind of incentive I could see Kemi being attracted to
Kemi sensibly proposed abolishing Stamp Duty instead
You can do both
Kemi has already led the way on student loans with a government committee now to review them, and she is correct to look at everything around NEETS and helping young people
Pensioners have had too much emphasis, and time to help the young and those striving to make a success of their lives
Speaking as a HENRY, Badenoch has been excellent on student loans and Stamp Duty (LBTT is even worse in Scotland). More of that and less of the "British ICE" stuff and she'll pick up some non-pensioner votes.
It's a big ask though - if you're under 50 and on a decent wage you're overwhelmingly likely to vote Labour/Green.
Yemen’s Houthis have announced they’ll be joining the war in support of Iran shortly. Analysts expect them to shut down another strait, Bab El-Mandeb, which will close the Suez Canal. The global economy hangs by a thread.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
The empathy for their peers is a variant on self interest.
See the comments on Mandy by C. Blair.
To the NU10Kers, Poor Peter is a proper chap. Who got caught. Which is an annoyance. Toxic now, but as soon as we can we will do something for him.
If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .
Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .
Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .
The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
It is solely for first time buyers and is the kind of incentive I could see Kemi being attracted to
Kemi sensibly proposed abolishing Stamp Duty instead
You can do both
Kemi has already led the way on student loans with a government committee now to review them, and she is correct to look at everything around NEETS and helping young people
Pensioners have had too much emphasis, and time to help the young and those striving to make a success of their lives
Speaking as a HENRY, Badenoch has been excellent on student loans and Stamp Duty (LBTT is even worse in Scotland). More of that and less of the "British ICE" stuff and she'll pick up some non-pensioner votes.
It's a big ask though - if you're under 50 and on a decent wage you're overwhelmingly likely to vote Labour/Green.
It is an important change of emphasis and at least the government committee have announced a review
More politically though, she has told Mahmoud she will vote for her immigration policies just in case Mahmoud suffers a back bench rebellion
If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .
Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .
Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .
The sensible thing for the US to do is capture Kharg Island, and hold it hostage against the enriched uranium Iran possesses and free flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, the UAE is reminding Iran that most of the regime’s banking is done in Dubai. There’s a lot of Iranian money all over the GCC.
When they FINALLY get their ducks in a row, the US is in a very strong negotiating position.
Their planning should have got them there sooner.
If that was the plan, why did they try bombing Tehran instead of seizing Kharg Island in the first hour?
The plan was bomb stuff, Iran surrenders.
Yep. Too many Hollywood action movies where sweaty hard men break the rules to shoot all the baddies before getting the girl.
Just wait for Epstein War 2: the Ayatollah of Rock n Rollah!
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
It is solely for first time buyers and is the kind of incentive I could see Kemi being attracted to
Kemi sensibly proposed abolishing Stamp Duty instead
You can do both
Kemi has already led the way on student loans with a government committee now to review them, and she is correct to look at everything around NEETS and helping young people
Pensioners have had too much emphasis, and time to help the young and those striving to make a success of their lives
Speaking as a HENRY, Badenoch has been excellent on student loans and Stamp Duty (LBTT is even worse in Scotland). More of that and less of the "British ICE" stuff and she'll pick up some non-pensioner votes.
It's a big ask though - if you're under 50 and on a decent wage you're overwhelmingly likely to vote Labour/Green.
Badenoch was a Minister in the Tory Government that created, funded and increased NEETS from thousands to Millions.
She very good at picking up ideas of others spouting them as her own, totally in funded like many Tory Policies since May and then refusing to apologise for her past.
Easy to do when you're never going to be in government and are fully aware of the fact that those who are, are mid root and branch review.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
The empathy for their peers is a variant on self interest.
See the comments on Mandy by C. Blair.
To the NU10Kers, Poor Peter is a proper chap. Who got caught. Which is an annoyance. Toxic now, but as soon as we can we will do something for him.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.
Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.
So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.
Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.
Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?
So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?
The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."
That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".
Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.
But, populists rarely have good solutions.
That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.
The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.
Yet it is part of policy.
The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.
Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*
When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".
I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.
There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.
It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.
I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.
Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.
But bad drives out good.
We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.
It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.
This, I think, is what will kill off small charities reliant on volunteer leadership.
yeah hmrc are forcing them all to register for vat / corporation tax too at which point I'd be noping out
One of the medium sized charities told the government that this is “rationalisation” of the charity sector.
Same charity is about to be done for grotesque violations of just about all the rules.
Name and shame as there must be far more than just one.
The formal complaints are in, with the charity commission. I’ve been asked not to name them, by the complainants. Until the Private Eye story on it comes out.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
In the Times this morning Cherie Blair says she feels sorry for Mandelson. Words fail me.
I've never been quite sure why Cherie and Tony married.
From a far, they seem very different people to me.
Opposite attracts but watching the recent documentary it is clear they love each other and if events had turned out differently she would have become the politician and Tony the judge.
Anyhoo here's the full Cherie Blair quite, where she doesn't use the word sorry.
“I feel very sad that it’s come to this,” she said. “I think … when anyone’s life falls apart, we should remember that there’s still a human being. And also, of course, we should also remember that they’re entitled to a fair trial.”
She added: “In the media, and particularly today with social media, too many people forget that the people that they’re talking about are human beings with feelings and can be hurt.”
I doubt it, Tony Blair was always a very average lawyer and barrister, he probably wouldn't even have made QC/KC had he stayed in the law. Cherie however was a top lawyer and always was going to be QC/KC and judge material.
Cherie was much less charismatic than her husband though and Tony was always the more natural politician of the two so it made sense for him to be elected as an MP and not her, the electors also decided that hence Tony won a seat in 1983 and Cherie lost.
They are the mirror image of the Clintons, Hillary was always the better lawyer than Bill but Bill the more natural politician with the charisma. Hence Bill won 2 presidential elections and Hillary was defeated in her 2016 bid
IIRC they had an agreement that whichever one of them won in 1983 would purse the political career. It wasn’t more specific than that
Former Junior Minister, lost seat to LD in July 2024,very passionate Environmentalist in Parliament and Government and out of Parliament.
Disgusted with Tory net zero stance.
Could be announced early next week.
Batman expletives incoming!
If any Tory defects to Polanski's near Marxist Green Party they should never have been in the Tory Party in the first place!
On one hand, fair point. (Though one of the interesting things to watch will be how far Green MPs and councillors feel the need to follow the ramblings of a man who hasn't been elected by the public.)
On the other, "they should go away and join another party" is not what healthy political parties say. Big tent, not pure tent.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...
Something they're already doing.
Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.
Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.
I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.
Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.
The regime is hated, but they have the military.
Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.
Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.
There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.
If the IRGC is the kind of outfit we think it is (and I think their slaughter of tens of thousands of protestors is incontrevtible proof of that), they aren't going waiver in the face of a little financial hardship.
A revolution would be absolutely disastrous for them because ordinary Iranians will do them like the Italians did Mussolini. There is no circumstance in which they will simply give up.
That may be true for the upper leadership, who may be pressured to flee the country if they lose their grasp.
For the grunts who are expected to pull the trigger on any protestors?
Precedent is widespread that failing to pay them collapses the options for regime survival.
We shall see. I just think the example of a country like Ukraine, living though unimaginable hardship this winter and with tens of thousands dead and maimed, would suggest this isn't as simple as you might think.
Who said simple?
The difference is the Ukrainian public is behind the Ukrainian government and wants Ukraine to survive.
The difference is Ukraine gets a river of money from the EU/UK as broad and as deep as the Dnepr. Without that, the regime would have caved in a long time ago.
So only rich and resource heavy countries can afford war? Or those that want to capture rich and resource heavy countries. The honourable profession of pirating, conquest and blood lust as enthusiastically supported by a few here on PB.
Must start reading my medieval history for a few pointers.
So in other words Swinney has offered more taxes from long suffering middle and higher earning Scots pockets for a deposit of less than 10% of the average Scottish house price. Building more homes for first time buyers would be a better use of his time
It is solely for first time buyers and is the kind of incentive I could see Kemi being attracted to
Kemi sensibly proposed abolishing Stamp Duty instead
Neither of them is sensible.
Both of them will see house prices rise to absorb the incentive, so the money will accrue to sellers.
Remember that, in a free market, prices are the most that the purchaser can be forced to pay.
You don’t cut Stamp Duty because you think it will bring house prices down. You cut it because massive transaction taxes on people moving house are a terrible drag on your economy.
Stamp Duty is the worst tax on the books in terms of negative economic impact.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
The question then becomes whether the mid-ranking officers and officials see it as being in their interests to take on not just the USA and Israel, but every major power who will be hurt by that.
Former Junior Minister, lost seat to LD in July 2024,very passionate Environmentalist in Parliament and Government and out of Parliament.
Disgusted with Tory net zero stance.
Could be announced early next week.
Batman expletives incoming!
If any Tory defects to Polanski's near Marxist Green Party they should never have been in the Tory Party in the first place!
On one hand, fair point. (Though one of the interesting things to watch will be how far Green MPs and councillors feel the need to follow the ramblings of a man who hasn't been elected by the public.)
On the other, "they should go away and join another party" is not what healthy political parties say. Big tent, not pure tent.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Vance (despite the context of the quote) is quite clearly trying to create a little distance from Trump without directly offending him. Trump has recently talked up Rubio as his preferred successor, so it's an understandable gamble.
Rubio is deeply involved in every administration policy; Vance has Sen the writing on the wall for this administration, I think.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Phil Woolas, MP for Oldham East+Saddleworth 1997-2010, has died at 66 after a long period of illness brain cancer. Unseated in election court verdict against his misleading content of his 2010 constituency campaign. It is the only case of that happening post-1945.
If the US wanted to destroy the whole of Kharg island they could so it seems like a game of chicken here .
Destroying the islands oil infrastructure will stop nearly all exports from Iran , this surely would cause a further oil spike .
Iran could retaliate with trying to cause further damage to the Gulf states oil refineries .
Apparently Trump has told Iran to open the Straights of Hormuz or he will destroy the oil facilities on Kharg island
High stakes, and two irrational and irresponsible leaders out of control
I don't think Iran are being irrational at all, they are playing a shit hand well.
A theocratic regime is by definition not entirely rational. Their strategy is also deeply flawed; if they'd spent the last decade semi-appeasing the US they'd be immeasurable more wealthy, could have built some genuinely useful armed forces with Chinese kit, and could probably have at some point acquired nuclear weapons. They're responsible for their own shit hand.
But you're right that tactically they're way ahead of the imbeciles directing the US attack.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
It may be an existential war for the Ayatollahs and IRGC but whether the Iranian people, especially the non-Persians among them them agree is a different matter.
Phil Woolas, MP for Oldham East+Saddleworth 1997-2010, has died at 66 after a long period of illness brain cancer. Unseated in election court verdict against his misleading content of his 2010 constituency campaign. It is the only case of that happening post-1945.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Though the first of those is about to be undone by the government. (Which of their predecessors introduced it, and why?)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
The obvious deal for DJT is to offer to give Zelensky the "Cable 243" treatment iin exchange for Putin talking Iran down off the ledge.
Ukraine isn't Vietnam, and the democratically elected government doesn't exist on the whim of the US ambassador.
I understand your interest in the SMO turning out to be a success, but that is moving out of the gift of the US, since they halted all funding to Ukraine.
I'm not convinced even Trump would survive openly backing the Russian invasion.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
The question then becomes whether the mid-ranking officers and officials see it as being in their interests to take on not just the USA and Israel, but every major power who will be hurt by that.
Thinking about it , the US has lost two Asian wars recently, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and 'drawn' another, Korea. It won the war against Japan, with Australian assistance, in the Pacific, not on land. I wouldn't put money on the US coming out ahead in Iran; not with Iranians fighting for their homeland.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
If they displayed the amount of tax paid alongside the headline price that would breach neither law, since it moves exactly in line with the retail price.
The obvious deal for DJT is to offer to give Zelensky the "Cable 243" treatment iin exchange for Putin talking Iran down off the ledge.
Ukraine isn't Vietnam, and the democratically elected government doesn't exist on the whim of the US ambassador.
I understand your interest in the SMO turning out to be a success, but that is moving out of the gift of the US, since they halted all funding to Ukraine.
I'm not convinced even Trump would survive openly backing the Russian invasion.
Even Russia is now scraping the bottom of the barrel, in terms of recruitment. Either Putin has to accept an armistice along current lines, or else start conscription in the Moscow/St. Petersburg corridor, with the attendant risks.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
If you make the point of the war "regime change" then you automatically make it existential for the other side. It also makes negotiations simply impossible.
While I am sure that many Iranians oppose the government, we do get a very skewed view. Pretty much all the talking heads that we see on screen have fled Iran. How much popular support the government has is hard to gauge. When wars are framed as nationalist causes support to the bitter end is not unusual, see Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.
My Great (x4) Grandmother was the Quaker prison reformer Elizabeth Fry. She was removed from the £5 note so Churchill could go on.
Given her love of nature (and commitment to justice, peace & equality) I can't help wondering if she might approve of Churchill's replacement by a badger... https://x.com/jon_bartley/status/2032415623632830840
Off topic but possibly cheering: Happy Pi Day to all of you! (Well, almost all.)
Only in the US (3.14). I the UK today is 14.3
If, after the second election of DJT, any proof of American weirdness was still required surely their habit of giving the month before the day qualifies. Just bizarre (although not as bizarre as voting for Trump, of course).
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
That is mostly because the public are dumb and ill informed. Moreover they have no interest in informing themselves of reality. Ask them how much the retailer makes on a litre of petrol and very few would go anywhere near as low as 8%.
For reference the retailer mark up on most high street non food products is between 25% and 30%. Books as high as 40%. Amazon generally ask for up to 60%.
With the Government taking 52% I would suggest the public anger is very much misdirected.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Possibly true but the issue for the rest of us is that the US Administration doesn't appear to care.
Trump might even see it as good for business (and a great deal of insider trading opportunities), given the US position as the world's largest oil producer. It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
They would be gambling that they can hold out long enough to get everyone who is not the US to pressure Trump to stop the war. It might even work.
When the alternative for them personally is oblivion, they might judge the odds good enough.
Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.
It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...
Something they're already doing.
Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.
Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.
I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.
Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.
The regime is hated, but they have the military.
Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.
Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.
There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.
If the IRGC is the kind of outfit we think it is (and I think their slaughter of tens of thousands of protestors is incontrevtible proof of that), they aren't going waiver in the face of a little financial hardship.
A revolution would be absolutely disastrous for them because ordinary Iranians will do them like the Italians did Mussolini. There is no circumstance in which they will simply give up.
That may be true for the upper leadership, who may be pressured to flee the country if they lose their grasp.
For the grunts who are expected to pull the trigger on any protestors?
Precedent is widespread that failing to pay them collapses the options for regime survival.
We shall see. I just think the example of a country like Ukraine, living though unimaginable hardship this winter and with tens of thousands dead and maimed, would suggest this isn't as simple as you might think.
Who said simple?
The difference is the Ukrainian public is behind the Ukrainian government and wants Ukraine to survive.
The difference is Ukraine gets a river of money from the EU/UK as broad and as deep as the Dnepr. Without that, the regime would have caved in a long time ago.
So only rich and resource heavy countries can afford war? Or those that want to capture rich and resource heavy countries. The honourable profession of pirating, conquest and blood lust as enthusiastically supported by a few here on PB.
Must start reading my medieval history for a few pointers.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
I'm sure if the alternative is to be sodomized by a bayonet the Ayatollahs, IRGC, Basji and Hizbollah would be willing to try.
Truthfully the fact we are even talking about this as a remote possibility shows how mahoosively Trump has fucked up here.
Not Netanyahu so much, because it will vindicate his claims about Iran. But for Trump, this could ironically become existential.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
Trump has already shown in his ‘tariffs against trade deficits’ actions that he does not value, or more likely does not understand, the value to America of controlling the world's reserve currency.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
I'm sure if the alternative is to be sodomized by a bayonet the Ayatollahs, IRGC, Basji and Hizbollah would be willing to try.
Truthfully the fact we are even talking about this as a remote possibility shows how mahoosively Trump has fucked up here.
Not Netanyahu so much, because it will vindicate his claims about Iran. But for Trump, this could ironically become existential.
It makes sense to offer authoritarian rulers the option of a comfortable retirement.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
I'm sure if the alternative is to be sodomized by a bayonet the Ayatollahs, IRGC, Basji and Hizbollah would be willing to try.
Truthfully the fact we are even talking about this as a remote possibility shows how mahoosively Trump has fucked up here.
Not Netanyahu so much, because it will vindicate his claims about Iran. But for Trump, this could ironically become existential.
It makes sense to offer authoritarian rulers the option of a comfortable retirement.
Former Junior Minister, lost seat to LD in July 2024,very passionate Environmentalist in Parliament and Government and out of Parliament.
Disgusted with Tory net zero stance.
Could be announced early next week.
Batman expletives incoming!
If any Tory defects to Polanski's near Marxist Green Party they should never have been in the Tory Party in the first place!
On one hand, fair point. (Though one of the interesting things to watch will be how far Green MPs and councillors feel the need to follow the ramblings of a man who hasn't been elected by the public.)
On the other, "they should go away and join another party" is not what healthy political parties say. Big tent, not pure tent.
If the Tory Party campaigned for abolishing the monarchy, a massive wealth tax, increased corporation and CGT tax, renationalisation of much of industry, scrapping the House of Lords, ripping up our relationship with the US and wokeism on demand as the Green Party does then even I would say it should be wound up and put in administration. Its assets, members and voters then divided between Reform and the LDs.
Yes you need to reach centrist voters but going so big tent as to take in voters who oppose everything you stand for just makes remaining a party pointless
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
That is mostly because the public are dumb and ill informed. Moreover they have no interest in informing themselves of reality. Ask them how much the retailer makes on a litre of petrol and very few would go anywhere near as low as 8%.
For reference the retailer mark up on most high street non food products is between 25% and 30%. Books as high as 40%. Amazon generally ask for up to 60%.
With the Government taking 52% I would suggest the public anger is very much misdirected.
And they could, of course, cut fuel duty tomorrow to ameliorate matters.
Or they could take the bonanza from extra tax revenue and say how much better public finances are...
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
That is mostly because the public are dumb and ill informed. Moreover they have no interest in informing themselves of reality. Ask them how much the retailer makes on a litre of petrol and very few would go anywhere near as low as 8%.
For reference the retailer mark up on most high street non food products is between 25% and 30%. Books as high as 40%. Amazon generally ask for up to 60%.
With the Government taking 52% I would suggest the public anger is very much misdirected.
When I worked for an oil company, one colleague was tasked with comping up with a single petrol station pump design for use round the world.
The advantages were that it would meet all the highest standards for safety and emission, while being cheaper.
All was going swimmingly. Until, very late in the process, someone in a the depth of the British Government said the design would be refused. Claiming safety (at first). My colleague was puzzled - it had been design and spec'd to the highest standard in the world. After some digging, the government apparatchiks admitted the problem.
The pump included a large, multi-coloured display. This would be programmed to display all the details of the transaction, complete with graphics. Various countries demand, in law, you show various things. So, the pump, as standard, would show a nice bar chart of the cost of the fuel. With the tax clearly indicated...
This was completely unacceptable - they thought that it would provoke a second fuel strike.,
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
That is mostly because the public are dumb and ill informed. Moreover they have no interest in informing themselves of reality. Ask them how much the retailer makes on a litre of petrol and very few would go anywhere near as low as 8%.
For reference the retailer mark up on most high street non food products is between 25% and 30%. Books as high as 40%. Amazon generally ask for up to 60%.
With the Government taking 52% I would suggest the public anger is very much misdirected.
You're right - but a tax cut here means a rise elsewhere, all else held equal. Indeed duties are likely to fall during this crisis because they are fixed in absolute terms.
Fuel duty is typically assessed one of the "better" taxes because it's unavoidable, doesn't distort the market too much, and is pretty inelastic (at least before EVs came in). It's also something of a price moderator because it's a fixed, rather than a percentage like VAT. With the exception of VAT and income tax, I can't think of better way to raise revenue tbh.
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
Though the first of those is about to be undone by the government. (Which of their predecessors introduced it, and why?)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
Don't talk sense or renewable fact to these zealots. They have oil in their swimming pools so that they can worship it
That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.
I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence
I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.
Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o
Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.
We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.
We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.
Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.
(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)
Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.
It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.
This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.
Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.
Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.
Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.
(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).
Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.
I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in
What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?
O&G only represents about 1% of the UK economy. Issuing some new licenses isn't going to boost that to any significant degree, and won't have a material effect for several years, and it's trending downwards anyway. Long term decisions aren't going to be made on a oil/gas price that we hope is only temporarily inflated.
Those suggesting this will solve our economic and fiscal woes in the face of an energy crisis are those with no connection to economic reality. #everylittlehelps though, I guess.
Who exactly has ever suggested that?
Quotation required.
Otherwise that's not even a strawman.
BigG. He seems to think opening up licences will solve this.
The whole response from those instinctively opposed to Net Zero, renewables etc has been risible - we're currently living through our second hydrocarbons crisis in four years and people are still clinging to the idea that our green energy policy is to blame for high prices.
There is a great deal of our green energy policy that is responsible for high prices. It’s just he “policy” but not the “green energy” bit.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
I’ve seen social media suggestions that at some point soon independent garages are going to start breaking down petrol prices.
Why don't they already ? (The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
Well there’s definitely a law that says the actual sale price must be advertised at a petrol station, and there’s definitely a law that says you can’t be misleading in your advertising.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
If they displayed the amount of tax paid alongside the headline price that would breach neither law, since it moves exactly in line with the retail price.
See above - I worked with someone who tried to introduce a petrol pump in the UK that clearly showed price and tax. It was blocked from being used.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
Can Iran defeat the rest of the world? That seems unlikely. Trying to blockade the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and permanently closing the Straits means they’re bringing Egypt and Saudi Arabia into the war against them, perhaps Turkey and China, too.
They do not need to defeat the rest of the world, simply to fight on until their antagonist gets bored.
Nye Bevan's speech on the Suez crisis comes to mind. A war without clear objectives is doomed.
In other words, Washington now faces three difficult paths: end the conflict under conditions that may allow Iran to claim a strategic victory; continue the current campaign and risk prolonged instability and rising global energy prices; or expand the war and trigger a major regional escalation.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
You forgot the key point
Washington is not in control of any of this Netanyahu is.
Is he? I can see there's an argument that he's bamboozled Trump into this disaster but the minute Trump announces The Greatest Victory Since Agincourt or whatever then Netanyahu will pull his airforce out.
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include: 1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route. 2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels. 3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield. 4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
It may be an existential war for the Ayatollahs and IRGC but whether the Iranian people, especially the non-Persians among them them agree is a different matter.
As Ayatollah Khomeini said when Iran faced economic hardship back in the 1980s, we did not fight this revolution for watermelons. For religious hardliners, austerity is a lesser concern than the need for cheap fruit for the populace.
The Iranian people cannot do much while the regime has all the guns, as we saw when 30,000 were slaughtered just weeks ago when they wrongly thought America had their backs.
Comments
Kemi has already led the way on student loans with a government committee now to review them, and she is correct to look at everything around NEETS and helping young people
Pensioners have had too much emphasis, and time to help the young and those striving to make a success of their lives
Milei on the other hand is an academic, and will be free to think about much more long term, radically and about supply side issues. He will be willing to experience short term pain when he knows he is right.
I think Carney's much more conservative (small c) approach would have been OK when things are going well, as in this country in the mid- and late-90s, but what we need much more now than competent demand management are radical supply side reforms. So my vote would be for Milei.
Carney would do no more than manage our decline a bit more competently. With Milei we'd have a good chance of reversing it.
#Νέοιδιάδοχοι
SW groups
Former Junior Minister, lost seat to LD in July 2024,very passionate Environmentalist in Parliament and Government and out of Parliament.
Disgusted with Tory net zero stance.
Could be announced early next week.
Batman expletives incoming!
*some say this was just, politically, to prove that he was open to negotiations. And so keep political support for the war.
Pro_Rata: 100+ words of lyrical anecdote, placing the aircraft at a known point with detail to place, time, and feel.
Viewcode: BIG PLANE! PLANE GO BIG!
His denunciation of tariffs is worth watching - shows how a “populist” politician can proudly sell an honest economic argument to his followers.
It's a big ask though - if you're under 50 and on a decent wage you're overwhelmingly likely to vote Labour/Green.
Yemen’s Houthis have announced they’ll be joining the war in support of Iran shortly. Analysts expect them to shut down another strait, Bab El-Mandeb, which will close the Suez Canal. The global economy hangs by a thread.
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mgzcpwefxk2t
Never go against Mandy when money and influence are on the line.
Politically toxic in the USA .
More politically though, she has told Mahmoud she will vote for her immigration policies just in case Mahmoud suffers a back bench rebellion
Just wait for Epstein War 2: the Ayatollah of Rock n Rollah!
https://youtu.be/ZfL4xKQeSfo?si=yMLNS6gg-ykEpYFM
She very good at picking up ideas of others spouting them as her own, totally in funded like many Tory Policies since May and then refusing to apologise for her past.
Easy to do when you're never going to be in government and are fully aware of the fact that those who are, are mid root and branch review.
Breaking News:
Iranian decision makers indicate that the Americans appear to be failing to understand that, for Iran, this is an existential war. In such a context, nothing is considered too precious to sacrifice.
With the approval of the new leader, Sayyed Mojataba Khamenei, it was agreed that if the US strikes or lands on any Iranian installations, Tehran is prepared to escalate dramatically.
Possible approved responses include:
1. Closure of Bab el Mandeb and attacks on Red Sea ports exporting oil, expanding the war to a vital global shipping route.
2. Total destruction of any island used by US forces as a staging ground, even if it means destroying Iranian installations worth billions of dollars and oil depots containing millions of barrels.
3. Complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its declaration as a war theatre, turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into an active battlefield.
4. All US locations in the Middle East are considered legitimate targets
Other plans have also been approved for different scenarios.
https://x.com/ejmalrai/status/2032776261563502888?s=20
Volodymyr Zelensky about his relationship with Donald Trump:
"Maybe with his age, he sees me as a son... But not his favorite son."
The USA seems to ignore the first point .
I suspect Marcus Fysh.
On the other, "they should go away and join another party" is not what healthy political parties say. Big tent, not pure tent.
Must start reading my medieval history for a few pointers.
Stamp Duty is the worst tax on the books in terms of negative economic impact.
Loading the cost of transition onto retail bills or pegging pricing to natural gas prices being two examples.
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."
Trump has recently talked up Rubio as his preferred successor, so it's an understandable gamble.
Rubio is deeply involved in every administration policy; Vance has Sen the writing on the wall for this administration, I think.
Petrol: 60p
Garage: 10p (gross income)
Government: 80p
YOU PAY 150p.
@sundersays.bsky.social
Phil Woolas, MP for Oldham East+Saddleworth 1997-2010, has died at 66 after a long period of illness brain cancer. Unseated in election court verdict against his misleading content of his 2010 constituency campaign. It is the only case of that happening post-1945.
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3mgzbwugaj22z
They're responsible for their own shit hand.
But you're right that tactically they're way ahead of the imbeciles directing the US attack.
(The first two items of course would blur the truth quite a bit.)
And the second should be about to resolve itself, shouldn't it? The next few tranches of solar and wind, together with battery storage, ought to create meaningful periods of time where gas isn't setting the price. We got close last year, but not quite.
I understand your interest in the SMO turning out to be a success, but that is moving out of the gift of the US, since they halted all funding to Ukraine.
I'm not convinced even Trump would survive openly backing the Russian invasion.
I’d take a guess that trying to break down prices isn’t allowed at the point of sale itself, but an indy garage might want to do it and look to gain publicity from the resulting court case.
I wouldn't put money on the US coming out ahead in Iran; not with Iranians fighting for their homeland.
For the Iranian Government, however...
I just had a sector of a chocolate tart in celebration.
While I am sure that many Iranians oppose the government, we do get a very skewed view. Pretty much all the talking heads that we see on screen have fled Iran. How much popular support the government has is hard to gauge. When wars are framed as nationalist causes support to the bitter end is not unusual, see Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.
My Great (x4) Grandmother was the Quaker prison reformer Elizabeth Fry. She was removed from the £5 note so Churchill could go on.
Given her love of nature (and commitment to justice, peace & equality) I can't help wondering if she might approve of Churchill's replacement by a badger...
https://x.com/jon_bartley/status/2032415623632830840
I sometimes celebrate that a day either side.
https://readfoundobject.substack.com/p/they-killed-normal-and-called-it?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=648z4&triedRedirect=true&_src_ref=go.bsky.app
And at the DfE, every Monday to Friday is pie-eyed day.
For reference the retailer mark up on most high street non food products is between 25% and 30%. Books as high as 40%. Amazon generally ask for up to 60%.
With the Government taking 52% I would suggest the public anger is very much misdirected.
It's not as though he gives a damn for the world economy.
It might even work.
When the alternative for them personally is oblivion, they might judge the odds good enough.
Truthfully the fact we are even talking about this as a remote possibility shows how mahoosively Trump has fucked up here.
Not Netanyahu so much, because it will vindicate his claims about Iran. But for Trump, this could ironically become existential.
Time is not neutral in this equation. Each passing day hardens Tehran’s perception that it can withstand the pressure and emerge from the crisis with the upper hand.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2032786358930972854
(part of a longer tweet on where the US now stands strategically)
Washington is not in control of any of this Netanyahu is.
Yes you need to reach centrist voters but going so big tent as to take in voters who oppose everything you stand for just makes remaining a party pointless
Or they could take the bonanza from extra tax revenue and say how much better public finances are...
The advantages were that it would meet all the highest standards for safety and emission, while being cheaper.
All was going swimmingly. Until, very late in the process, someone in a the depth of the British Government said the design would be refused. Claiming safety (at first). My colleague was puzzled - it had been design and spec'd to the highest standard in the world. After some digging, the government apparatchiks admitted the problem.
The pump included a large, multi-coloured display. This would be programmed to display all the details of the transaction, complete with graphics. Various countries demand, in law, you show various things. So, the pump, as standard, would show a nice bar chart of the cost of the fuel. With the tax clearly indicated...
This was completely unacceptable - they thought that it would provoke a second fuel strike.,
The war is already a huge financial strain; Trump could halt it if he chose.
Bibi got to precipitate it, but he really doesn't control when it ends.
Fuel duty is typically assessed one of the "better" taxes because it's unavoidable, doesn't distort the market too much, and is pretty inelastic (at least before EVs came in). It's also something of a price moderator because it's a fixed, rather than a percentage like VAT. With the exception of VAT and income tax, I can't think of better way to raise revenue tbh.
"Starmer’s aides are discussing how to blame looming problems on what people are already calling “Trumpflation.”
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2032743615361900842
Nye Bevan's speech on the Suez crisis comes to mind. A war without clear objectives is doomed.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/may/03/greatspeeches2?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
The Iranian people cannot do much while the regime has all the guns, as we saw when 30,000 were slaughtered just weeks ago when they wrongly thought America had their backs.
It's a con, since the monthly wage is lower to make up for it.