(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Appreciated!
Did anyone hear about the latest bullshit from Muskybaby?
A factory on the moon. Run by robots. To build AI satellites. Which will be launched from the moon with a rail launcher.
Rational people think "is this a joke?" Followed by "are you fucking mad?"
But no. The cult says YEAH and thinks its the future of humanity.
To build a "robot army" to populate your factory on the moon to build and launch the AI satellites which will take your job.
Today's video at 4pm is a confessional. I nearly quit YouTube and want my audience to tell me what they want to hear: 1) Say what I think. i.e. Robot factories on the moon is Fucking Mad 2) Get with the program. Yeah! Factories on the moon! Go Elon 3) STFU about all of that and just drive the car
The Guardian is spinning this result as bad for the right. Getting 42% in Paris isn't a bad result for them at all.
There are some interesting election results and polls coming out of the EU
eg in Spain the political gender gap is now enormous. For young Spanish men the far right Vox are the most popular party. By a distance. Yet young Spanish women support the centre left PSOE
Mr. Leon, are we not seeing similar things elsewhere in democracies?
We are
But this is a quite recent evolution in Spain - it is now following France and Germany
My flint agent told me the other day that her two sons - 15 and 18 - are very very right wing. As in - they think Reform are pathetic centrists. Nor do tbey try to hide their sentiments
They are both privately educated and grew up in impeccably liberal Notting Hill
Not to worry, I'm sure if the Government just tells them liking Lord of the Rings is a sign of extremism that'll bring them back aboard the mainstream centrism train... ahem.
More seriously, that sort of thing is concerning. Had coffee with a friend recently who lamented not having the ability to leave the country easily if Reform won.
I don’t understand this kind of reaction
Reform are not Nazis. They’re not even Vox or AfD. They’re much more like traditional conservatives from about the 1950s. Was Britain a fascist hell hole in the 1950s, such that people needed to flee abroad? No
The hysteria Reform induce in liberal snowflakes is absurd
To my mind the biggest danger from Reform is their total incoherence on economic policies. Tho they are belatedly trying to fix this
Reform contains a range of views. Farage strikes me as a right wing Tory, as do folks like Tice and Jenrick. At the same time, the party contains more right wing elements and its membership looks to skew towards the far right. The question is how they might evolve in power, and the risk of them embracing much more extreme positions in power is high in my view, as their policies fail and they look for scapegoats. The Tory party has always been a broad church with its liberal wing keeping the right in check, evident eg in Heath sacking Powell in 68 after the rivers of blood speech. Without that restraining role from the left, with Farage likely representing the moderate wing of Reform, I think it is reasonable for people to fear a Reform government. Especially anyone with skin in the game, eg someone whose family could end up being one of those scapegoats.
We must agree to disagree. To my mind the one major party which is a clear and present danger to the wellbeing of the UK is the party in government. Unfortunately
The Greens are even crazier but they will never win a general election, unlike Labour
You're not looking at the risk of your family getting deported, of course
They’re quite welcome to deport my nephew’s wife. She’s intolerable
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
So he’s admitting to a war crime and stopping it for 5 days
I suspect this is AI, but it’s still very funny. If not, congratulations to the writer. Yes, Prime Minister, 2026 Edition
Jim Hacker: Humphrey, we have to do something about Iran.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Prime Minister, the government is already doing a great deal.
Jim Hacker: Such as?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Monitoring developments, coordinating with allies, reviewing contingency plans and expressing concern.
Jim Hacker: That all sounds like nothing, Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: On the contrary, Prime Minister. In diplomacy it is vital to appear active without becoming involved.
Jim Hacker: The Americans are bombing things, the Iranians are firing missiles, the Strait of Hormuz is practically closed and we’re… appearing active?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Precisely.
Jim Hacker: Innocent people are dying, Humphrey!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Prime Minister. That is why the Foreign Office is drafting a very strongly worded statement about it.
Jim Hacker: A statement won’t stop a war.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, Prime Minister, but it will ensure that we are on record as having been extremely concerned while it was happening.
Bernard Woolley: If I may, Prime Minister — the Cabinet Office has identified six possible courses of action.
Jim Hacker: Good! What are they?
Bernard Woolley: We can condemn the escalation, call for restraint, urge negotiations, support our allies, assist defensive operations or participate directly.
Jim Hacker: And what do they recommend?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Supporting our allies.
Jim Hacker: That sounds suspiciously like participating.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh no, Prime Minister. Participating means fighting. Supporting merely means allowing others to fight from places that technically belong to us.
Jim Hacker: Humphrey, if Iranian missiles hit one of our bases, we’ll be in the war anyway!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Prime Minister, but we shall have entered it with the invaluable diplomatic advantage of being surprised.
Bernard Woolley: It’s generally considered the safest way to enter a war, Prime Minister.
Jim Hacker: How on earth can that be safe?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Because if the war goes badly, we can say we never meant to join it. And if it goes well, we can say we were there all along.
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
Thank fuck for that
I mean, I like a dash of drama, but this was getting a bit too edgy even for me
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Presumably Tesla’s plan is to buy overnight surplus to store in massive batteries, to be sold during peak hours - which is possibly the best thing that could possibly happen to grid stability.
They are *already doing that*. Megapacks - biggest in Europe - installed to soak up power when generated and can't be transmitted any further, then discharged when needed.
The domestic energy plan? A cohesive app. Like Octopus. To install solar and batteries. Like Octopus. To store power when cheap. Like Octopus. And sell it to the grid when the price goes up. Like Octopus.
They think they will be pioneering as they were in Texas. They are not pioneering here. And Octopus isn't run by a universally disliked twunt.
Which leaves price. Undercut the market by selling very cheap hardware and power.
Same as the cybercabcarvehicleXL5. Does nothing new. But will be cheap.
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
Or in other words he doesn't want sky high oil prices sending his approval ratings nosediving further
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
Or in other words he doesn't want sky high oil prices sending his approval ratings nosediving further
Now he just needs something he can claim as a “win”. But what is it?
Also, will the Israelis stop? They clearly want Iran neutered for decades
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
Or in other words he doesn't want sky high oil prices sending his approval ratings nosediving further
Now he just needs something he can claim as a “win”. But what is it?
Also, will the Israelis stop? They clearly want Iran neutered for decades
He's been claiming a win for 3 weeks
He needs ships navigating the strait. Maybe he gets that, maybe he doesn't
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Presumably Tesla’s plan is to buy overnight surplus to store in massive batteries, to be sold during peak hours - which is possibly the best thing that could possibly happen to grid stability.
They are *already doing that*. Megapacks - biggest in Europe - installed to soak up power when generated and can't be transmitted any further, then discharged when needed.
The domestic energy plan? A cohesive app. Like Octopus. To install solar and batteries. Like Octopus. To store power when cheap. Like Octopus. And sell it to the grid when the price goes up. Like Octopus.
They think they will be pioneering as they were in Texas. They are not pioneering here. And Octopus isn't run by a universally disliked twunt.
Which leaves price. Undercut the market by selling very cheap hardware and power.
Same as the cybercabcarvehicleXL5. Does nothing new. But will be cheap.
Yeah! Robot factories on the moon! Woo!
Looks at the price of Tesla Powerwall verses what I’m planning to install.
He’s going to have to halve the price to compete - and even then do I want a Tesla in my home?
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
A very effective phonecall from Starmer to Trump last night?
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Presumably Tesla’s plan is to buy overnight surplus to store in massive batteries, to be sold during peak hours - which is possibly the best thing that could possibly happen to grid stability.
They are *already doing that*. Megapacks - biggest in Europe - installed to soak up power when generated and can't be transmitted any further, then discharged when needed.
The domestic energy plan? A cohesive app. Like Octopus. To install solar and batteries. Like Octopus. To store power when cheap. Like Octopus. And sell it to the grid when the price goes up. Like Octopus.
They think they will be pioneering as they were in Texas. They are not pioneering here. And Octopus isn't run by a universally disliked twunt.
Which leaves price. Undercut the market by selling very cheap hardware and power.
Same as the cybercabcarvehicleXL5. Does nothing new. But will be cheap.
Yeah! Robot factories on the moon! Woo!
Getting into the market for storage on a big enough scale to really shift power in the 12 hour scale, would be new.
I just hope labour are not that stupid to replace Starmer with Rayner when we are in the middle of an existential crisis
And as for Starmer agreeing to be demoted to Foreign Secretary we are really on fantasy island
I have no faith or trust in Starmer but this is not what the country wants or needs right now
Have you seen the price of petrol? This is on Starmer's watch.
He took a phonecall from the Putin shill at Mar a Lago yesterday. We will have ships in the Gulf by teatime tomorrow. Get rid.
I understand you would prefer the Churchillian Boris Johnson to the fishwife Rayner, but Johnson is a) not inside Parliament or b) the Party of Government. We need a Peter Wright style coup before we get Big Dog back in the driving seat.
What on earth have you had for breakfast ?
I have had years of battles on here with @HYUFD over his devotion to Johnson who I even voted against in the members ballot
Spraying unfounded allegations around and even using 'fishwife' Rayner indicates you are losing it
Either way Starmer needs to go. Do you trust him not to fold for Trump?
In fairness to the "fishwife" she would have no qualms about telling Trump to do one.
My wife comes from fishwife stock in Arbroath and Auchmithy. Strong independent women who worked with their men in a tough trade, who knew their own mind and were not shy in expressing it. Any man would be fortunate to share their life with such a woman. I certainly have been.
I have no doubt your good, lady, wife would have no qualms about telling Trump "to do one" too.. Perhaps one of Starmer's manifold faults is he is no "fishwife". Is this morning's Cobra meeting a confirmation of capitulation?
Fishwife is a derogatory term as you can see from both @DavidL and my wives heritage, and indeed they were amongst the most hard working women in their communities
It’s just his unfunny, affected, self pitying style. He doesn’t really think of her as a fishwife, he’s parodying a caricature of people he disagrees with.
I took a decision in November to neither respond to your posts or comment on posting characteristics of yours I find offensive. My only interaction has been to defend comments you have made directly to me or about me.
You have decided you despise someone you have never met on a random blog. How bizarre.
That’s just because you are embarrassed of your Instagram activity, and would rather deflect. No need to make it look like a high minded stately decision
I couldn’t care less, I’m glad you are spending less time trolling me. I don’t despise you. You were an irritant that I’ve managed to get rid of, everyone’s a winner
Let's not relitigate the past. I have absolutely no embarrassment for my Instagram account. I have not changed the way I use Instagram and I have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about. I have subsequently made my account private because I am simply shocked that a complete stranger who has taken a dislike to me on political betting blog would want to trawl through my Instagram and Facebook pages, like someone rifling a stranger's underwater drawer.Your account pops up on my account being as you decided to engage. I haven't looked. I have no interest in who you are or what you do.
TSE did ask for this debate to be curtailed back in November. I have kept my side of the bargain, so this defence is my last word.
Thank you.
You linked to your Instagram account on here, so the fault lies with you. You were embarrassed because I noticed that your followers were dubious female bots. I haven’t looked you up on any social media other than through the link you provided, so not sure why you would mention Facebook
It was interesting for me to find out about you because you were becoming a bit of a crazy stalker on here. As you aren’t constantly trolling me anymore, I have had a result, so let’s all be happy
Apparently Trump talked to imaginary Iranian leadership and it went so well that he called off the attacks .
We should be happy that Trump had his bluff called and caved in .
It feels like a defeat for Trump. He boasted about the almighty military power of the USA. And he assembled the largest armada since the emperor Xerxes
And yet he can’t dislodge a regime staffed by geriatric clerics and he can’t cope with a load of drones you can buy at B&Q
UAE senior advisor to government, and one of the most powerful businessmen in the country, Anwar Gargash:
“The war must not end with yet another ceasefire. The event must conclude with the containment of the nuclear threat, the drones, the missiles, and Iranian bullying in the Strait of Hormuz”
Now I don't know in what condition they are but there's no reason they cannot help to make Hormuz operational.
I flew with the Bahraini Air Force a fair bit when we were selling them the Hawk. They'd probably be ok if micro-managed and backed up by US AWACS/SEAD/EW. I've exercised with their navy and they are a grand bunch of lads but I wouldn't trust them to clean the heads in a proper shooting war. The Saudis are probably the best of a (very) bad bunch in that region. Basically, all the gear and no idea with a somewhat relaxed attitude to following orders.
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
A very effective phonecall from Starmer to Trump last night?
They were talking about it on the news this morning. Apparently they talked for 20 minutes, then released a readout containing 64 words
- Iranian denials of any negotiations - Some pretty bellicose Iranian rhetoric around winning, TACO. - observations that the Strait of Hormuz is still closed - Israeli attacks intensifying - Trump reversing positions
Apparently Trump talked to imaginary Iranian leadership and it went so well that he called off the attacks .
We should be happy that Trump had his bluff called and caved in .
It feels like a defeat for Trump. He boasted about the almighty military power of the USA. And he assembled the largest armada since the emperor Xerxes
And yet he can’t dislodge a regime staffed by geriatric clerics and he can’t cope with a load of drones you can buy at B&Q
He’s not going to enjoy the sense of humiliation
He will TACO the TACO within the day.
Then TACO that a day later.
By the weekend, it will be entirely unclear what is happening.
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Appreciated!
Did anyone hear about the latest bullshit from Muskybaby?
A factory on the moon. Run by robots. To build AI satellites. Which will be launched from the moon with a rail launcher.
Rational people think "is this a joke?" Followed by "are you fucking mad?"
But no. The cult says YEAH and thinks its the future of humanity.
To build a "robot army" to populate your factory on the moon to build and launch the AI satellites which will take your job.
Today's video at 4pm is a confessional. I nearly quit YouTube and want my audience to tell me what they want to hear: 1) Say what I think. i.e. Robot factories on the moon is Fucking Mad 2) Get with the program. Yeah! Factories on the moon! Go Elon 3) STFU about all of that and just drive the car
From your point of view I think that there is considerable opportunity in covering the Tesla product ecosystem from cars to panels and batteries. There's room for endless commentary about comparisons and tariffs, which would also let you develop a stream around the offerings of all the others. These are very expensive products, so if Tesla were to go for a % it could be a decent cashflow - and still OK if they do it as per the £250 (?) per car referral now. And you could cover several markets.
Energy affiliate agreements are lucrative - for example TRIP are focused on them so it must pay something, and it has built the business model for all those services such as U-Switch.
Plus we are into a very volatile period, so lots of people may be switching. And you have an established 20k audience to make commission off the back of, whilst helping them save money.
If you are dumping Youtube, don't forget that you can probably sell it, subject to T&C. Even 15 years ago, blogs went for 1-2x annual revenue.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
One of Trump’s many problems is that he mentally exists in the late 20th century, when the USA was hegemonic and militarily peerless - able to crush enemies at will
Now it is economically rivalled and industrially outranked by China. It is also heavily indebted. And militarily the balance has shifted in favour of smaller cheaper drones. So it is harder to impose overwhelming power even on inferior, poorer rivals
Which means he may lash out in frustration as this drags on, unexpectedly
They still are peerless in many ways, no other country could project 5% of the firepower into the Gulf that the US has in the last four weeks.
There is something else going on with the Hormuz other than the drone threat, but I don't know what it is. The Iraqis, with technical and doctrinal support from the French, struggled to sink tankers with fucking Excocets during the 'Tanker War' of the mid 80s. The USN could and would secure the strait if ordered to, but they have not been ordered to. Maybe Trump is very reluctant to take any significant amount of casualties or lose a ship.
Someone referred me to the UKMTO which appears to be an odd British organisation responsible for monitoring Hormuz and the general area.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
- Iranian denials of any negotiations - Some pretty bellicose Iranian rhetoric around winning, TACO. - observations that the Strait of Hormuz is still closed - Israeli attacks intensifying - Trump reversing positions
Yeah I can see all of those except the last, Trump has folded.
For President Trump and the Iranians, the key question is what would constitute “a complete and total resolution” of the issues that have divided them.
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Appreciated!
Did anyone hear about the latest bullshit from Muskybaby?
A factory on the moon. Run by robots. To build AI satellites. Which will be launched from the moon with a rail launcher.
Rational people think "is this a joke?" Followed by "are you fucking mad?"
But no. The cult says YEAH and thinks its the future of humanity.
To build a "robot army" to populate your factory on the moon to build and launch the AI satellites which will take your job.
Today's video at 4pm is a confessional. I nearly quit YouTube and want my audience to tell me what they want to hear: 1) Say what I think. i.e. Robot factories on the moon is Fucking Mad 2) Get with the program. Yeah! Factories on the moon! Go Elon 3) STFU about all of that and just drive the car
From your point of view I think that there is considerable opportunity in covering the Tesla product ecosystem from cars to panels and batteries. There's room for endless commentary about comparisons and tariffs, which would also let you develop a stream around the offerings of all the others. These are very expensive products, so if Tesla were to go for a % it could be a decent cashflow - and still OK if they do it as per the £250 (?) per car referral now. And you could cover several markets.
Energy affiliate agreements are lucrative - for example TRIP are focused on them so it must pay something, and it has built the business model for all those services such as U-Switch.
Plus we are into a very volatile period, so lots of people may be switching. And you have an established 20k audience to make commission off the back of, whilst helping them save money.
If you are dumping Youtube, don't forget that you can probably sell it, subject to T&C. Even 15 years ago, blogs went for 1-2x annual revenue.
The risk to incumbents like Octopus will be the same risk UK incumbents have always faced from US giants: scale and deep pockets. Tesla can afford to invest billions and flood the market.
If it means a step charge in UK storage and grid stability then it’s a good thing whoever’s doing it. Unless the government is stupid enough to allow Tesla to get into a position where it can exercise economic coercion. Thats where competition law becomes important.
- Iranian denials of any negotiations - Some pretty bellicose Iranian rhetoric around winning, TACO. - observations that the Strait of Hormuz is still closed - Israeli attacks intensifying - Trump reversing positions
Yeah I can see all of those except the last, Trump has folded.
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Presumably Tesla’s plan is to buy overnight surplus to store in massive batteries, to be sold during peak hours - which is possibly the best thing that could possibly happen to grid stability.
They are *already doing that*. Megapacks - biggest in Europe - installed to soak up power when generated and can't be transmitted any further, then discharged when needed.
The domestic energy plan? A cohesive app. Like Octopus. To install solar and batteries. Like Octopus. To store power when cheap. Like Octopus. And sell it to the grid when the price goes up. Like Octopus.
They think they will be pioneering as they were in Texas. They are not pioneering here. And Octopus isn't run by a universally disliked twunt.
Which leaves price. Undercut the market by selling very cheap hardware and power.
Same as the cybercabcarvehicleXL5. Does nothing new. But will be cheap.
Yeah! Robot factories on the moon! Woo!
Looks at the price of Tesla Powerwall verses what I’m planning to install.
He’s going to have to halve the price to compete - and even then do I want a Tesla in my home?
In addition to Musk personally, Tesla also aiui exercise excessive control of how my Powerwall operates wrt to timing of charging up etc.
I'm not sure where they are now, but to me it felt a bit like "Apple" control freakery, and I do not trust Tesla or Musk not to walk away and leave me high and dry. (Are they not potentially doing that with some older models of EV?)
Though, that is very much Buildhub and Green Building before that culture - in that the basic attitude has always been that the way to do things well and inexpensively has always been to assert personal control, rather than rely on black box products and services.
- Iranian denials of any negotiations - Some pretty bellicose Iranian rhetoric around winning, TACO. - observations that the Strait of Hormuz is still closed - Israeli attacks intensifying - Trump reversing positions
Yeah I can see all of those except the last, Trump has folded.
One of Trump’s many problems is that he mentally exists in the late 20th century, when the USA was hegemonic and militarily peerless - able to crush enemies at will
Now it is economically rivalled and industrially outranked by China. It is also heavily indebted. And militarily the balance has shifted in favour of smaller cheaper drones. So it is harder to impose overwhelming power even on inferior, poorer rivals
Which means he may lash out in frustration as this drags on, unexpectedly
They still are peerless in many ways, no other country could project 5% of the firepower into the Gulf that the US has in the last four weeks.
There is something else going on with the Hormuz other than the drone threat, but I don't know what it is. The Iraqis, with technical and doctrinal support from the French, struggled to sink tankers with fucking Excocets during the 'Tanker War' of the mid 80s. The USN could and would secure the strait if ordered to, but they have not been ordered to. Maybe Trump is very reluctant to take any significant amount of casualties or lose a ship.
Someone referred me to the UKMTO which appears to be an odd British organisation responsible for monitoring Hormuz and the general area.
“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.
Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Presumably Tesla’s plan is to buy overnight surplus to store in massive batteries, to be sold during peak hours - which is possibly the best thing that could possibly happen to grid stability.
They are *already doing that*. Megapacks - biggest in Europe - installed to soak up power when generated and can't be transmitted any further, then discharged when needed.
The domestic energy plan? A cohesive app. Like Octopus. To install solar and batteries. Like Octopus. To store power when cheap. Like Octopus. And sell it to the grid when the price goes up. Like Octopus.
They think they will be pioneering as they were in Texas. They are not pioneering here. And Octopus isn't run by a universally disliked twunt.
Which leaves price. Undercut the market by selling very cheap hardware and power.
Same as the cybercabcarvehicleXL5. Does nothing new. But will be cheap.
Yeah! Robot factories on the moon! Woo!
Looks at the price of Tesla Powerwall verses what I’m planning to install.
He’s going to have to halve the price to compete - and even then do I want a Tesla in my home?
Exactly. But the Elon cucks seem to think that only Tesla are in the market.
One of Trump’s many problems is that he mentally exists in the late 20th century, when the USA was hegemonic and militarily peerless - able to crush enemies at will
Now it is economically rivalled and industrially outranked by China. It is also heavily indebted. And militarily the balance has shifted in favour of smaller cheaper drones. So it is harder to impose overwhelming power even on inferior, poorer rivals
Which means he may lash out in frustration as this drags on, unexpectedly
They still are peerless in many ways, no other country could project 5% of the firepower into the Gulf that the US has in the last four weeks.
There is something else going on with the Hormuz other than the drone threat, but I don't know what it is. The Iraqis, with technical and doctrinal support from the French, struggled to sink tankers with fucking Excocets during the 'Tanker War' of the mid 80s. The USN could and would secure the strait if ordered to, but they have not been ordered to. Maybe Trump is very reluctant to take any significant amount of casualties or lose a ship.
Someone referred me to the UKMTO which appears to be an odd British organisation responsible for monitoring Hormuz and the general area.
They are a remarkable bit of the UK military consisting of perhaps a dozen naval reservists who coordinate international maritime things around marine protection.
I heard a podcast last week which gave a very broad fascinating sweep of the historical and strategic horizon on Times Radio (I think), which discussed them, as well as a perambulation of history going back 100-200 years. It was an interview with an officer who had been in the M.E. for service, but had been left paralysed from the neck down (perhaps someone can recognise?), and was now still a reservist in a staff function.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
- Iranian denials of any negotiations - Some pretty bellicose Iranian rhetoric around winning, TACO. - observations that the Strait of Hormuz is still closed - Israeli attacks intensifying - Trump reversing positions
Yeah I can see all of those except the last, Trump has folded.
Hope so. But we have an incredibly dangerous mixture in a single person here - otoh he thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread and otoh he's so out of his depth it isn't funny.
(I think it will be good for his affiliate sales revenue stream.)
Appreciated!
Did anyone hear about the latest bullshit from Muskybaby?
A factory on the moon. Run by robots. To build AI satellites. Which will be launched from the moon with a rail launcher.
Rational people think "is this a joke?" Followed by "are you fucking mad?"
But no. The cult says YEAH and thinks its the future of humanity.
To build a "robot army" to populate your factory on the moon to build and launch the AI satellites which will take your job.
Today's video at 4pm is a confessional. I nearly quit YouTube and want my audience to tell me what they want to hear: 1) Say what I think. i.e. Robot factories on the moon is Fucking Mad 2) Get with the program. Yeah! Factories on the moon! Go Elon 3) STFU about all of that and just drive the car
From your point of view I think that there is considerable opportunity in covering the Tesla product ecosystem from cars to panels and batteries. There's room for endless commentary about comparisons and tariffs, which would also let you develop a stream around the offerings of all the others. These are very expensive products, so if Tesla were to go for a % it could be a decent cashflow - and still OK if they do it as per the £250 (?) per car referral now. And you could cover several markets.
Energy affiliate agreements are lucrative - for example TRIP are focused on them so it must pay something, and it has built the business model for all those services such as U-Switch.
Plus we are into a very volatile period, so lots of people may be switching. And you have an established 20k audience to make commission off the back of, whilst helping them save money.
If you are dumping Youtube, don't forget that you can probably sell it, subject to T&C. Even 15 years ago, blogs went for 1-2x annual revenue.
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
So he’s admitting to a war crime and stopping it for 5 days
Yep. You *cannot* target civilian infrastructure in an unprompted war of aggression. And yet here we are, supposed to be grateful of his postponing this criminal act.
So Captain America has said something again, has he. Rightio, big man. Noted.
Doesn't help what's on my mind though - is anybody else picking up a sardine shortage?
There"s been a lot of volatility in sardine prices over the last few days, as we can see from this live tracker. And with that news, now we head over to Calataly Sisters, for today's Currency Cat.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.
Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”
Can we briefly consider the gulf region after this stops?
The US will not be welcome in the states formerly allied to them. The US military became an existential threat to their existence, not a defender of them.
What do Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait all now have in common? The need to defend themselves. Against the Americans as much as against Iran.
As we move to a post-America world, I can see a Gulf confederation forming and allying itself to the forming Canada EU ANZUK group, with Japan and Korea increasingly involved as well.
Why would *any* major economy now want to be allied to the US?
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
The point is that millions of people *need* a car to work, and the poorest of those are massively disadvantaged by the current tax regime.
In a Utopian world where we all have EVs, fuel tax revenue will be zero, so government needs to think about how they replace that revenue.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Or at best you work options are very limited and minimum wage because hey they can’t go anywhere else
Can we briefly consider the gulf region after this stops?
The US will not be welcome in the states formerly allied to them. The US military became an existential threat to their existence, not a defender of them.
The US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE won't be going anywhere because the US guarantees the security and hence survival of their royal families. The calculation is a little different for Saudi who have the heft to run a slightly more autonomous foreign policy.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
There is another possibility here. Araghchi has often made noises sounding like he wants a deal, and he's almost the only one of the earlier leadership left alone.
If it's anyone, it would be him that Trump has something to show.
Can we briefly consider the gulf region after this stops?
The US will not be welcome in the states formerly allied to them. The US military became an existential threat to their existence, not a defender of them.
What do Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait all now have in common? The need to defend themselves. Against the Americans as much as against Iran.
As we move to a post-America world, I can see a Gulf confederation forming and allying itself to the forming Canada EU ANZUK group, with Japan and Korea increasingly involved as well.
Why would *any* major economy now want to be allied to the US?
Well at the moment the GCC States are doubling down on the US.
The Guardian is spinning this result as bad for the right. Getting 42% in Paris isn't a bad result for them at all.
There are some interesting election results and polls coming out of the EU
eg in Spain the political gender gap is now enormous. For young Spanish men the far right Vox are the most popular party. By a distance. Yet young Spanish women support the centre left PSOE
Mr. Leon, are we not seeing similar things elsewhere in democracies?
We are
But this is a quite recent evolution in Spain - it is now following France and Germany
My flint agent told me the other day that her two sons - 15 and 18 - are very very right wing. As in - they think Reform are pathetic centrists. Nor do tbey try to hide their sentiments
They are both privately educated and grew up in impeccably liberal Notting Hill
Not to worry, I'm sure if the Government just tells them liking Lord of the Rings is a sign of extremism that'll bring them back aboard the mainstream centrism train... ahem.
More seriously, that sort of thing is concerning. Had coffee with a friend recently who lamented not having the ability to leave the country easily if Reform won.
I don’t understand this kind of reaction
Reform are not Nazis. They’re not even Vox or AfD. They’re much more like traditional conservatives from about the 1950s. Was Britain a fascist hell hole in the 1950s, such that people needed to flee abroad? No
The hysteria Reform induce in liberal snowflakes is absurd
To my mind the biggest danger from Reform is their total incoherence on economic policies. Tho they are belatedly trying to fix this
Reform contains a range of views. Farage strikes me as a right wing Tory, as do folks like Tice and Jenrick. At the same time, the party contains more right wing elements and its membership looks to skew towards the far right. The question is how they might evolve in power, and the risk of them embracing much more extreme positions in power is high in my view, as their policies fail and they look for scapegoats. The Tory party has always been a broad church with its liberal wing keeping the right in check, evident eg in Heath sacking Powell in 68 after the rivers of blood speech. Without that restraining role from the left, with Farage likely representing the moderate wing of Reform, I think it is reasonable for people to fear a Reform government. Especially anyone with skin in the game, eg someone whose family could end up being one of those scapegoats.
We must agree to disagree. To my mind the one major party which is a clear and present danger to the wellbeing of the UK is the party in government. Unfortunately
The Greens are even crazier but they will never win a general election, unlike Labour
Given your record of identifying clear and present dangers after voting for them, I think we can treat that with a degree if scepticism.
Can we briefly consider the gulf region after this stops?
The US will not be welcome in the states formerly allied to them. The US military became an existential threat to their existence, not a defender of them.
The US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE won't be going anywhere because the US guarantees the security and hence survival of their royal families. The calculation is a little different for Saudi who have the heft to run a slightly more autonomous foreign policy.
Short term? Sure. Long term? No chance. They can buy arms. From China.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.
I'm not sure anyone is going to admit to talks having happened.
I'm sure nobody is talking directly to Trump.
I wonder if US Marines going into Kharg Island is now off the menu?
Jeremy Corbyn and friends’ trip to Cuba is going about as well as expected.
They’re staying in the only hotel in Havana that appears to have power, as even hospitals have run out of fuel for their generators, then there’s what can only be described as a poverty safari, the Western communists going around in tour buses looking at the local poors as if they were animals in a safari park.
Yes, we should really be concentrating on the rsoles that have cut off fuel causing patients on ventilators to die bacause of powercuts. Bound to be woke Dems at the bottom of it.
No, it’s the Cuban leadership preferring to give scarce fuel to the Western commies than their own hospitals.
Why is the fuel scarce, skip?
Because it is a poorly-run, impoverished, corrupt, communist nation.
I thought it was because of a US blockade on oil imports.
The US has long been blockading Cuba, which has chosen to ally itself with Venezuela, Russia and other communist dictatorships.
Cuba is paying the price for its own leadership's choices, not America's.
How long has the USA been blockading oil imports to Cuba? Venezuela is now under the Trumpian (the good guy!) umbrella and Russia isn't communist btw, just to keep you abreast of events.
The USA has been blockading oil imports to Cuba since 1960, which became a full embargo of Cuba under Democrat President John F. Kennedy in 1962.
Trump is not a good guy, but Cuba has made its bed. And Cuba is communist, still.
Happy to keep you informed.
Kennedy blocking exports of US oil to Cuba was not a 'full embargo', Trump stopping eg Mexico exporting oil to Cuba is.
Happy to keep you informed, but sorry to drag you away from your 24/7 simping for Israel, Hasbaratholomew.
The USA attempted to do a full embargo of Cuba, the problem was they could not enforce it against the USSR which shipped oil to Cuba despite America pressuring others not to do so.
It has been American policy since 1960 to try to prevent third party nations from getting oil to Cuba too. With more or less success over that time.
The Toricelli Act passed with bipartisan support in 1992, and the Helms-Burton Act passed under President Clinton with bipartisan support in 1996 have both targeted foreign companies trading with Cuba.
Cuba has been getting its oil from enemies of America, not its allies. America has been consistent in trying to prevent this, since 1960.
At last concord, we agree there was not a 'full embargo' (much as petulant US losers might have wished it) against Cuba until the current petulant loser Trump enforced maximum pressure this year.
America has been attempting an embargo since 1960.
That existing embargo has been more successful since the fall of the Venezuelan dictator in January, absolutely.
It is long-running US policy since 1960 being implemented though, not new policy.
So, in conclusion, oil is scarce in Cuba because of the US.
Because Cuba is a communist dictatorship sanctioned by the US, yes.
Cuba could have had reform and removed the communist dictatorship and normalised relations at any point since 1960. They have not. The dictatorship has made its bed, preferring conflict to liberalisation.
In a better world, following his success in Venezuela, Trump would then have turned his attention to Cuba, not Iran
I’m pretty sure he could have overturned the regime in Havana without hurtling us all towards economic depression and maybe nuclear war
Oh well
Iran is a far greater threat than Cuba.
Topple the Mullahs and peace in the Middle East becomes viable.
It’s a somewhat naive view of the Middle East that you think Iran is the only obstacle to peace. Toppling the Mullahs isn’t going to stop Turkey and the Kurds shooting at each other. Toppling the Mullahs isn’t going to stop Israeli settlers going on pogroms in the West Bank. Toppling the Mullahs isn’t going to stop Saudi Arabia and the UAE supporting different sides in the Sudanese civil war.
“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.
Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
Yup. It's looking more and more like he's applying those NYC real estate skills to the great benefit of the Middle East and the whole of the wider world here. I'd just commented that he was horribly out of his depth too - has there been a more ineptly timed post on PB since my own "she's looking well" about the Queen on the day before she died. Feel a bit stupid now, but in my defence the guy is clearly operating on a plane that ordinary people cannot conceive of let alone see. So it appears to the mundane average eye that he's utterly clueless. The fact he doesn't mind everyone getting this false idea as he toils and plots his way to triumph is a mark of the man.
A rather strange thing happened to me yesterday. I was stopped on a quiet residential street by a middle-aged blonde woman who was crying. In a strong Russian accent, she begged me for the use of my phone, saying that somebody was about to die and she needed to message her priest. Being fairly good-natured, I let her use it, as it did not seem a flight risk, being a) female and b) rather stout. She tapped out a message in Russian (I speak the language a little and have the keyboard installed on my phone). I checked the number as she did so and it didn't look like one of those scam numbers where they charge you £50 for a text. She thanked me profusely and we went out separate ways.
About an hour later I got a reply my phone. Not out of noseyness (well, maybe a bit), but to check it wasn't some kind of scam of some kind, I translated the message she had sent and the reply she received. The original message was:
"Father, I'm furious, have mercy on me for Christ's sake. That's why this is happening. I'm dying and in despair. I can forgive you. Unblock the number please. I beg on my knees. [Her name]"
And the curt, rather dramatic reply:
"You have crossed the line beyond which there is no forgiveness".
I checked and the only sin for an Orthodox Christian for which there is no forgiveness is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Murdering thousands of Ukrainians is fine if you say sorry apparently. But I'm not sure if blasphemy is what he meant.
Anyway, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But it feels like the first chapter of a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.
I'm not sure anyone is going to admit to talks having happened.
I'm sure nobody is talking directly to Trump.
I wonder if US Marines going into Kharg Island is now off the menu?
NY Times pointing out that the five days Trump now has to somehow get the Straits open by negotiation is the time it will take the marines who are on route to arrive and set up.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
The UK is very under-provisioned for mass transit systems in mid-sized cities (pop 150k to 300k), compared to peer countries in Europe.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.
Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”
Just because we need to be mistrustful of the loony Trump, doesn’t mean that the Iranians automatically speak the truth. Quite the opposite. They are as evil as he is mad
It is perfectly possible they have made grovelling overtures to Trump, and that’s why he’s called off the attacks. But they would never admit this, naturally
A rather strange thing happened to me yesterday. I was stopped on a quiet residential street by a middle-aged blonde woman who was crying. In a strong Russian accent, she begged me for the use of my phone, saying that somebody was about to die and she needed to message her priest. Being fairly good-natured, I let her use it, as it did not seem a flight risk, being a) female and b) rather stout. She tapped out a message in Russian (I speak the language a little and have the keyboard installed on my phone). I checked the number as she did so and it didn't look like one of those scam numbers where they charge you £50 for a text. She thanked me profusely and we went out separate ways.
About an hour later I got a reply my phone. Not out of noseyness (well, maybe a bit), but to check it wasn't some kind of scam of some kind, I translated the message she had sent and the reply she received. The original message was:
"Father, I'm furious, have mercy on me for Christ's sake. That's why this is happening. I'm dying and in despair. I can forgive you. Unblock the number please. I beg on my knees. [Her name]"
And the curt, rather dramatic reply:
"You have crossed the line beyond which there is no forgiveness".
I checked and the only sin for an Orthodox Christian for which there is no forgiveness is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Murdering thousands of Ukrainians is fine if you say sorry apparently. But I'm not sure if blasphemy is what he meant.
Anyway, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But it feels like the first chapter of a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.
I'm not sure anyone is going to admit to talks having happened.
I'm sure nobody is talking directly to Trump.
I wonder if US Marines going into Kharg Island is now off the menu?
NY Times pointing out that the five days Trump now has to somehow get the Straits open by negotiation is the time it will take the marines who are on route to arrive and set up.
Total co-incidence, that the Marines are on the way to Hormuz to support what’s already in the air.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Are the SNP guaranteeing REJOIN? Maybe time to look for a nice little pad in New Town.......
The SNP can't guarantee anything, as the UK Supreme Court confirmed the Westminster Parliament has the final say on the Union and has the final say on whether we rejoin the EU too
Can we briefly consider the gulf region after this stops?
The US will not be welcome in the states formerly allied to them. The US military became an existential threat to their existence, not a defender of them.
What do Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait all now have in common? The need to defend themselves. Against the Americans as much as against Iran.
As we move to a post-America world, I can see a Gulf confederation forming and allying itself to the forming Canada EU ANZUK group, with Japan and Korea increasingly involved as well.
Why would *any* major economy now want to be allied to the US?
The continued supply and maintenance of US military kit will be a large consideration for them.
But they will be looking to hedge their bets as rapidly as possible. Betting in countries like Canada and the UK requires that they actually commit to spending something on their militaries. It won't just be Japan that's closely watching our next move on GCAP, and our long awaited defence spending review.
“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.
Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
Comments
Did anyone hear about the latest bullshit from Muskybaby?
A factory on the moon. Run by robots. To build AI satellites. Which will be launched from the moon with a rail launcher.
Rational people think "is this a joke?" Followed by "are you fucking mad?"
But no. The cult says YEAH and thinks its the future of humanity.
To build a "robot army" to populate your factory on the moon to build and launch the AI satellites which will take your job.
Today's video at 4pm is a confessional. I nearly quit YouTube and want my audience to tell me what they want to hear:
1) Say what I think. i.e. Robot factories on the moon is Fucking Mad
2) Get with the program. Yeah! Factories on the moon! Go Elon
3) STFU about all of that and just drive the car
@fintwitter.bsky.social
BREAKING⚠Trump on Iran: I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings
Not sure if the SLab numbers are entirely believable.
indy swim 🏴
@indy_swim
·
40m
🚨 New Holyrood poll from @LordAshcroft
Constituency:
🟡 SNP - 39%
🔵 RFM - 14%
🔴 LAB - 12%
🟢 GRN - 11%
🟠 LD - 10%
🔵 CON - 9%
Regional
🟡 SNP - 31%
🟢 GRN - 17%
🔵 RFM - 15%
🔴 LAB - 12%
🔵 CON - 10%
🟠 LD - 9%
⚫️ Other - 1%
https://x.com/indy_swim/status/2036027692353466711?s=20
Yes, Prime Minister, 2026 Edition
Jim Hacker: Humphrey, we have to do something about Iran.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Prime Minister, the government is already doing a great deal.
Jim Hacker: Such as?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Monitoring developments, coordinating with allies, reviewing contingency plans and expressing concern.
Jim Hacker: That all sounds like nothing, Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: On the contrary, Prime Minister. In diplomacy it is vital to appear active without becoming involved.
Jim Hacker: The Americans are bombing things, the Iranians are firing missiles, the Strait of Hormuz is practically closed and we’re… appearing active?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Precisely.
Jim Hacker: Innocent people are dying, Humphrey!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Prime Minister. That is why the Foreign Office is drafting a very strongly worded statement about it.
Jim Hacker: A statement won’t stop a war.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, Prime Minister, but it will ensure that we are on record as having been extremely concerned while it was happening.
Bernard Woolley: If I may, Prime Minister — the Cabinet Office has identified six possible courses of action.
Jim Hacker: Good! What are they?
Bernard Woolley: We can condemn the escalation, call for restraint, urge negotiations, support our allies, assist defensive operations or participate directly.
Jim Hacker: And what do they recommend?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Supporting our allies.
Jim Hacker: That sounds suspiciously like participating.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh no, Prime Minister. Participating means fighting. Supporting merely means allowing others to fight from places that technically belong to us.
Jim Hacker: Humphrey, if Iranian missiles hit one of our bases, we’ll be in the war anyway!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Prime Minister, but we shall have entered it with the invaluable diplomatic advantage of being surprised.
Bernard Woolley: It’s generally considered the safest way to enter a war, Prime Minister.
Jim Hacker: How on earth can that be safe?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Because if the war goes badly, we can say we never meant to join it. And if it goes well, we can say we were there all along.
Source: https://x.com/greatabysmal/status/2035771744812683423
I mean, I like a dash of drama, but this was getting a bit too edgy even for me
The domestic energy plan? A cohesive app. Like Octopus. To install solar and batteries. Like Octopus. To store power when cheap. Like Octopus. And sell it to the grid when the price goes up. Like Octopus.
They think they will be pioneering as they were in Texas. They are not pioneering here. And Octopus isn't run by a universally disliked twunt.
Which leaves price. Undercut the market by selling very cheap hardware and power.
Same as the cybercabcarvehicleXL5. Does nothing new. But will be cheap.
Yeah! Robot factories on the moon! Woo!
Also, will the Israelis stop? They clearly want Iran neutered for decades
He needs ships navigating the strait. Maybe he gets that, maybe he doesn't
He’s going to have to halve the price to compete - and even then do I want a Tesla in my home?
We should be happy that Trump had his bluff called and caved in .
Down to under 100 dollars a barrel .
It was interesting for me to find out about you because you were becoming a bit of a crazy stalker on here. As you aren’t constantly trolling me anymore, I have had a result, so let’s all be happy
And yet he can’t dislodge a regime staffed by geriatric clerics and he can’t cope with a load of drones you can buy at B&Q
He’s not going to enjoy the sense of humiliation
I think in the next few hours we may hear:
- Iranian denials of any negotiations
- Some pretty bellicose Iranian rhetoric around winning, TACO.
- observations that the Strait of Hormuz is still closed
- Israeli attacks intensifying
- Trump reversing positions
Then TACO that a day later.
By the weekend, it will be entirely unclear what is happening.
Energy affiliate agreements are lucrative - for example TRIP are focused on them so it must pay something, and it has built the business model for all those services such as U-Switch.
Plus we are into a very volatile period, so lots of people may be switching. And you have an established 20k audience to make commission off the back of, whilst helping them save money.
If you are dumping Youtube, don't forget that you can probably sell it, subject to T&C. Even 15 years ago, blogs went for 1-2x annual revenue.
Some chaps who know Trump will be making the customary amount of wonga yet again, as usual.
IRANIAN MEDIA SAYS THERE WAS NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONTACT WITH TRUMP AND CLAIMS HE WITHDREW AFTER THREATENING TO ATTACK WEST ASIA ENERGY FACILITIES.
Latest reports
https://www.ukmto.org/recent-incidents#22b1cf89-7ce8-4dc7-95c5-9e1b98fa0efa
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
NY Times
You don't say...
If it means a step charge in UK storage and grid stability then it’s a good thing whoever’s doing it. Unless the government is stupid enough to allow Tesla to get into a position where it can exercise economic coercion. Thats where competition law becomes important.
I'm not sure where they are now, but to me it felt a bit like "Apple" control freakery, and I do not trust Tesla or Musk not to walk away and leave me high and dry. (Are they not potentially doing that with some older models of EV?)
Though, that is very much Buildhub and Green Building before that culture - in that the basic attitude has always been that the way to do things well and inexpensively has always been to assert personal control, rather than rely on black box products and services.
https://youtu.be/mV5uLfXz5s0?si=xCEJCCRxz_8FfV6w&t=120
Doesn't help what's on my mind though - is anybody else picking up a sardine shortage?
Disastrous outcome for Trump and the rest of us who are not Friends of Iran.
I heard a podcast last week which gave a very broad fascinating sweep of the historical and strategic horizon on Times Radio (I think), which discussed them, as well as a perambulation of history going back 100-200 years. It was an interview with an officer who had been in the M.E. for service, but had been left paralysed from the neck down (perhaps someone can recognise?), and was now still a reservist in a staff function.
I can't find it again.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/1hdzmvh/can_someone_legally_buy_a_youtube_channel/
https://www.ge-tracker.com/item/sardine
https://tvpworld.com/92230163/slovakias-fico-launches-crackdown-on-polish-fuel-tourism-with-higher-diesel-prices
The US will not be welcome in the states formerly allied to them. The US military became an existential threat to their existence, not a defender of them.
What do Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait all now have in common? The need to defend themselves. Against the Americans as much as against Iran.
As we move to a post-America world, I can see a Gulf confederation forming and allying itself to the forming Canada EU ANZUK group, with Japan and Korea increasingly involved as well.
Why would *any* major economy now want to be allied to the US?
In a Utopian world where we all have EVs, fuel tax revenue will be zero, so government needs to think about how they replace that revenue.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
If it's anyone, it would be him that Trump has something to show.
It would be fascinating to see what a Cuba working with massive US investment could turn itself into in a decade.
https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2034949395007816002
I'm sure nobody is talking directly to Trump.
I wonder if US Marines going into Kharg Island is now off the menu?
Are we doing enough to stimulate panic buying yet?
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
I can report that Whitstable is rather charming, in the mild spring sunshine. In a gritty, authentic English coastal way
A rather strange thing happened to me yesterday. I was stopped on a quiet residential street by a middle-aged blonde woman who was crying. In a strong Russian accent, she begged me for the use of my phone, saying that somebody was about to die and she needed to message her priest. Being fairly good-natured, I let her use it, as it did not seem a flight risk, being a) female and b) rather stout. She tapped out a message in Russian (I speak the language a little and have the keyboard installed on my phone). I checked the number as she did so and it didn't look like one of those scam numbers where they charge you £50 for a text. She thanked me profusely and we went out separate ways.
About an hour later I got a reply my phone. Not out of noseyness (well, maybe a bit), but to check it wasn't some kind of scam of some kind, I translated the message she had sent and the reply she received. The original message was:
"Father, I'm furious, have mercy on me for Christ's sake. That's why this is happening. I'm dying and in despair. I can forgive you. Unblock the number please. I beg on my knees. [Her name]"
And the curt, rather dramatic reply:
"You have crossed the line beyond which there is no forgiveness".
I checked and the only sin for an Orthodox Christian for which there is no forgiveness is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Murdering thousands of Ukrainians is fine if you say sorry apparently. But I'm not sure if blasphemy is what he meant.
Anyway, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But it feels like the first chapter of a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
The UK is very under-provisioned for mass transit systems in mid-sized cities (pop 150k to 300k), compared to peer countries in Europe.
It is perfectly possible they have made grovelling overtures to Trump, and that’s why he’s called off the attacks. But they would never admit this, naturally
So we just don’t know
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
But they will be looking to hedge their bets as rapidly as possible. Betting in countries like Canada and the UK requires that they actually commit to spending something on their militaries.
It won't just be Japan that's closely watching our next move on GCAP, and our long awaited defence spending review.
If that is the subject of discussion come polling day...
Now back in the red.
If you're going to go to war, do it properly.
Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?
We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.
Either shit or get off the pot.