He doesn't even get one of those. The only inland Freeport is East Midlands Airport which is well outside the West Midlands.
Is this the Freeport which supposedly the EU was preventing us from having?
So he said. I have no idea of the truth of that because I suppose it depends entirely on what he means as a Freeport compared to what the EU means.
Personally... I think the age of Freeports is rather behind us. They are great for emerging economies with high tariff barriers looking to learn a little bit about the world. But given the UK has relatively low tariffs, and that stuff finished in free port manufacturing zones is often exempted from FTAs, I think they are likely to remain unused except for very low value add "putting stuff in boxes".
So why the excitement about them? Is it mainly a shiny badge to give to local MPs and mayors?
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
You do know that when you buy a new car, and you turn it on, and there's that big screen about Terms & Conditions for using the in car systems (without which your car will basically not work), that you are agreeing they have the right to sell your location data to whoever they want, right?
Anyone buying a new Ford, Tesla, GM, etc., today has already agreed to let Google and Amazon look at your location history so as to work out what things to sell you.
He doesn't even get one of those. The only inland Freeport is East Midlands Airport which is well outside the West Midlands.
Is this the Freeport which supposedly the EU was preventing us from having?
So he said. I have no idea of the truth of that because I suppose it depends entirely on what he means as a Freeport compared to what the EU means.
Personally... I think the age of Freeports is rather behind us. They are great for emerging economies with high tariff barriers looking to learn a little bit about the world. But given the UK has relatively low tariffs, and that stuff finished in free port manufacturing zones is often exempted from FTAs, I think they are likely to remain unused except for very low value add "putting stuff in boxes".
So why the excitement about them? Is it mainly a shiny badge to give to local MPs and mayors?
He doesn't even get one of those. The only inland Freeport is East Midlands Airport which is well outside the West Midlands.
Is this the Freeport which supposedly the EU was preventing us from having?
So he said. I have no idea of the truth of that because I suppose it depends entirely on what he means as a Freeport compared to what the EU means.
Personally... I think the age of Freeports is rather behind us. They are great for emerging economies with high tariff barriers looking to learn a little bit about the world. But given the UK has relatively low tariffs, and that stuff finished in free port manufacturing zones is often exempted from FTAs, I think they are likely to remain unused except for very low value add "putting stuff in boxes".
So why the excitement about them? Is it mainly a shiny badge to give to local MPs and mayors?
My conclusion from this committee is that Sturgeon may be telling the truth, in part. She wasn’t involved in a conspiracy - she genuinely pursued it for the complainers and MeToo. However there WAS a lower level ‘conspiracy’ - call it ‘over-eagerness to please the Leader’ - which she discovered to her horror. Everything since has been cover-up
Personally I don't think that for a second. I agree that simply wanting to block someone returning to frontline politics is not grounds for a plot to destroy and imprison them, but I think that's because there are more layers to this that both Salmond and Sturgeon are aware of, but the public is not. They are fighting to the death, but there's implicit agreement at the same time to do it within certain limits - many of them legal.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
I understand and share your views on this. But like Canute I have to point out the futility of trying to hold back the tide. Most new drivers are now opting for the black boxes in their cars which monitor everything they do and where they go to get themselves cheaper insurance. It is the only way most of them can afford to even get insurance.
So the public view is changing. Combined with the ubiquity of mobile phones and other trackable devices I am afraid that people like us who still try to hold on to the illusion of living offline, away from governmental scrutiny, are becoming dinosaurs.
Well, I think there's a world of difference between choice and compulsion. And public opinion can move both ways, it's not inevitable it goes in one direction. Most people are horrified when they realise how their data is abused.
If the Government gave a choice - tax on the clock, or per KwH (at a slightly higher rate maybe) or real-time road pricing - I might accept it. But, I want that choice because monopolies are dangerous, and I simply don't trust them.
The new technological/AI age cannot be one where all agency and control is stripped away from the citizen in the name of "efficiency".
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
I understand and share your views on this. But like Canute I have to point out the futility of trying to hold back the tide. Most new drivers are now opting for the black boxes in their cars which monitor everything they do and where they go to get themselves cheaper insurance. It is the only way most of them can afford to even get insurance.
So the public view is changing. Combined with the ubiquity of mobile phones and other trackable devices I am afraid that people like us who still try to hold on to the illusion of living offline, away from governmental scrutiny, are becoming dinosaurs.
This isn't in line with my experience. My view is that telematics has been a miserable failure, and other than cases where they physically can't buy a policy without one, drivers tend to opt out.
It's worth remembering that telematics doesn't reduce insurance costs in aggregate - in fact it increases them, because the cost of the box and monitoring driving ability is non-zero. All it does is help the better drivers to prove they're deserving of lower premiums faster than they would normally (ie by not claiming over the course of several years). The worse than average drivers (50% of the population) will see no benefit from informing their insurer of the fact.
My conclusion from this committee is that Sturgeon may be telling the truth, in part. She wasn’t involved in a conspiracy - she genuinely pursued it for the complainers and MeToo. However there WAS a lower level ‘conspiracy’ - call it ‘over-eagerness to please the Leader’ - which she discovered to her horror. Everything since has been cover-up
Personally I don't think that for a second. I agree that simply wanting to block someone returning to frontline politics is not grounds for a plot to destroy and imprison them, but I think that's because there are more layers to this that both Salmond and Sturgeon are aware of, but the public is not. They are fighting to the death, but there's implicit agreement at the same time to do it within certain limits - many of them legal.
Fair enough. And you probably know more than me, so that’s helpful, ta
What I do know is that this day started well for Sturgeon but this last session has been dreadful for her. It is also absolutely gripping.
He doesn't even get one of those. The only inland Freeport is East Midlands Airport which is well outside the West Midlands.
Is this the Freeport which supposedly the EU was preventing us from having?
So he said. I have no idea of the truth of that because I suppose it depends entirely on what he means as a Freeport compared to what the EU means.
Personally... I think the age of Freeports is rather behind us. They are great for emerging economies with high tariff barriers looking to learn a little bit about the world. But given the UK has relatively low tariffs, and that stuff finished in free port manufacturing zones is often exempted from FTAs, I think they are likely to remain unused except for very low value add "putting stuff in boxes".
So why the excitement about them? Is it mainly a shiny badge to give to local MPs and mayors?
Yes.
Yep - our local MP can't explain any benefit that comes from it beyond jobs.
When you ask how they plan to avoid the typical issue of local relocations into the area the answer you usually get is um, errr....
However it's interesting that Teesside International is included as a few of the leasing firms have been setting up plane servicing / refurbishment hubs there - so it's not all bad as this will remove a lot of paperwork there.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
You do know that when you buy a new car, and you turn it on, and there's that big screen about Terms & Conditions for using the in car systems (without which your car will basically not work), that you are agreeing they have the right to sell your location data to whoever they want, right?
Anyone buying a new Ford, Tesla, GM, etc., today has already agreed to let Google and Amazon look at your location history so as to work out what things to sell you.
I don't have any of those cars but, yes, I do, and I have similar concerns about the use of my data by private companies too. I'd like to see that regulated by primary legislation.
I don't see why I should "accept" the government - who have the power to arrest, detain or fine me - having access to all of my data in real-time just because it's increasingly a feature in the private commercial space.
He doesn't even get one of those. The only inland Freeport is East Midlands Airport which is well outside the West Midlands.
Is this the Freeport which supposedly the EU was preventing us from having?
So he said. I have no idea of the truth of that because I suppose it depends entirely on what he means as a Freeport compared to what the EU means.
Personally... I think the age of Freeports is rather behind us. They are great for emerging economies with high tariff barriers looking to learn a little bit about the world. But given the UK has relatively low tariffs, and that stuff finished in free port manufacturing zones is often exempted from FTAs, I think they are likely to remain unused except for very low value add "putting stuff in boxes".
So why the excitement about them? Is it mainly a shiny badge to give to local MPs and mayors?
Do Freeports make any difference on origin shares for products going EU bound, or to the double tariff issue? I jus don't know on that one.
50p increase in sick pay. Not really an incentive to isolate.
Sick pay needs reform regardless of covid. At least the first week per year should be at full rate of pay paid in full by the employer. Good employers already do this and more.
Absolutely. I get up to six months on full pay if I am sick.
Won't the simplest solution for replacing fuel tax ultimately be to just tax electricity? Its not as if people are going to avoid using electricity so a tax per kWh seems the simplest solution?
Yes.
Also, if you're going to tax driving in general, it's better to tax it in the places it does the most damage, not the places it does the least.
Electricity tax is an interesting concept. Presumably, in terms of domestic consumption, it wouldn't be very difficult to identify and exempt all the old crusties (based on the precedents of protecting vulnerable users and the existing practice of doling out winter fuel payments) whilst it could be used to really soak working families for extra revenue, in a way that they could do almost nothing to avoid. I can see how a future Government might buy into that one.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
I understand and share your views on this. But like Canute I have to point out the futility of trying to hold back the tide. Most new drivers are now opting for the black boxes in their cars which monitor everything they do and where they go to get themselves cheaper insurance. It is the only way most of them can afford to even get insurance.
So the public view is changing. Combined with the ubiquity of mobile phones and other trackable devices I am afraid that people like us who still try to hold on to the illusion of living offline, away from governmental scrutiny, are becoming dinosaurs.
This isn't in line with my experience. My view is that telematics has been a miserable failure, and other than cases where they physically can't buy a policy without one, drivers tend to opt out.
It's worth remembering that telematics doesn't reduce insurance costs in aggregate - in fact it increases them, because the cost of the box and monitoring driving ability is non-zero. All it does is help the better drivers to prove they're deserving of lower premiums faster than they would normally (ie by not claiming over the course of several years). The worse than average drivers (50% of the population) will see no benefit from informing their insurer of the fact.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
Yes, but those who do so will be at the margins. When they're looking at a total collapse of revenue, I doubt the Treasury will worry too much about that.
Won't the simplest solution for replacing fuel tax ultimately be to just tax electricity? Its not as if people are going to avoid using electricity so a tax per kWh seems the simplest solution?
Yes.
Also, if you're going to tax driving in general, it's better to tax it in the places it does the most damage, not the places it does the least.
Electricity tax is an interesting concept. Presumably, in terms of domestic consumption, it wouldn't be very difficult to identify and exempt all the old crusties (based on the precedents of protecting vulnerable users and the existing practice of doling out winter fuel payments) whilst it could be used to really soak working families for extra revenue, in a way that they could do almost nothing to avoid. I can see how a future Government might buy into that one.
On the other hand, remember VAT on domestic fuel bills? I'd call it a third rail issue, except that people will say that we won't be able to afford the electricity...
Won't the simplest solution for replacing fuel tax ultimately be to just tax electricity? Its not as if people are going to avoid using electricity so a tax per kWh seems the simplest solution?
Yes.
Also, if you're going to tax driving in general, it's better to tax it in the places it does the most damage, not the places it does the least.
General Tax on electricity, or a more general carbon tax, is an interesting one. It would incentivise micro-renewables without need for an FIT subsidy.
My solar array generates enough lecky for 15,000 Tesla miles per year. And a Tesla is like a Panzer.
Far better than the hole the Spanish dug themselves into where they ended up taxing solar panels.
These measures also bury what was arguably George Osborne’s major legacy as chancellor; he dragged corporation tax down during his six years in office, but Rishi Sunak’s plans would largely reverse the Osborne cuts, with the rise generating an extra £16bn for the Treasury by the end of this parliament. This is much closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s policy for corporation tax at the 2019 election than Boris Johnson’s. Sunak’s plans would also raise an extra £6bn a year from income tax by the end of this parliament, through fiscal drag, with more people dragged into the higher rate. Disraeli once said the secret to a “sound Conservative government” was “Tory men and Whig measures”. Perhaps this is what they look like.
And yet, as Sir Keir Starmer argued in his response, a Labour budget would be different. There was nothing on social care, little on welfare (the row about cutting the £20-per-week uplift has just been postponed) and little that sounded truly transformational in terms of work and learning.
Sunak ended with an announcement intended about free ports to persuade the public there will be a Brexit dividend. This was the first budget since the UK properly left the ambit of the EU. During the 2016 referendum campaign Boris Johnson and Vote Leave said that, if the UK left the EU, VAT on fuel would go. Fuel duty has been frozen in this budget, but - like other Brexit promises - the pledge to scrap VAT on fuel seems to have vanished.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
I understand and share your views on this. But like Canute I have to point out the futility of trying to hold back the tide. Most new drivers are now opting for the black boxes in their cars which monitor everything they do and where they go to get themselves cheaper insurance. It is the only way most of them can afford to even get insurance.
So the public view is changing. Combined with the ubiquity of mobile phones and other trackable devices I am afraid that people like us who still try to hold on to the illusion of living offline, away from governmental scrutiny, are becoming dinosaurs.
This isn't in line with my experience. My view is that telematics has been a miserable failure, and other than cases where they physically can't buy a policy without one, drivers tend to opt out.
It's worth remembering that telematics doesn't reduce insurance costs in aggregate - in fact it increases them, because the cost of the box and monitoring driving ability is non-zero. All it does is help the better drivers to prove they're deserving of lower premiums faster than they would normally (ie by not claiming over the course of several years). The worse than average drivers (50% of the population) will see no benefit from informing their insurer of the fact.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
Yes, but those who do so will be at the margins. When they're looking at a total collapse of revenue, I doubt the Treasury will worry too much about that.
I don't think that's born out by the polling, as @Malmesbury says.
Besides which several alternatives have already been outlined on this thread.
Sunak ended with an announcement intended about free ports to persuade the public there will be a Brexit dividend. This was the first budget since the UK properly left the ambit of the EU. During the 2016 referendum campaign Boris Johnson and Vote Leave said that, if the UK left the EU, VAT on fuel would go. Fuel duty has been frozen in this budget, but - like other Brexit promises - the pledge to scrap VAT on fuel seems to have vanished.
True, of course, but the havoc caused by Covid has provided a blanket excuse for practically everything.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
The problem is that all polling on the matter has shown that road pricing is a Fuel Strike moment. No one trusts the government on this.
This is one of the reasons that hydrogen was the promoted clean fuel solution - when the time was right, you would shift the fuel taxes to hydrogen.
Problem is that electricity is everywhere.
The resistance to rebalancing the anti-road structural plans in the light of ZEVs being universal is strong. But it is needed - and it is quite interesting to see some public transport plans in that light....
You get billed for KWH in your home. The Government doesn't snoop to see what you're using it on, or when, except at a very macro level - and it's wholly commercial.
The thing is Governments have different policy agendas, supreme power, aren't in competition with anyone, so you can't choose, are able to join lots of dots and are this perfectly corruptable: they could also use this to do you for speeding, as much as pricing per mile, and you could be blackmailed. Or petty personal vendettas could be pursued with it.
I will be making my thoughts known on it to my MP.
In theory smart meters could be used to work out what people use their electricity for. Most devices have a recognisable signature.
They could even work out which TV channel you are watching.
These measures also bury what was arguably George Osborne’s major legacy as chancellor; he dragged corporation tax down during his six years in office, but Rishi Sunak’s plans would largely reverse the Osborne cuts, with the rise generating an extra £16bn for the Treasury by the end of this parliament. This is much closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s policy for corporation tax at the 2019 election than Boris Johnson’s. Sunak’s plans would also raise an extra £6bn a year from income tax by the end of this parliament, through fiscal drag, with more people dragged into the higher rate. Disraeli once said the secret to a “sound Conservative government” was “Tory men and Whig measures”. Perhaps this is what they look like.
And yet, as Sir Keir Starmer argued in his response, a Labour budget would be different. There was nothing on social care, little on welfare (the row about cutting the £20-per-week uplift has just been postponed) and little that sounded truly transformational in terms of work and learning.
Sunak ended with an announcement intended about free ports to persuade the public there will be a Brexit dividend. This was the first budget since the UK properly left the ambit of the EU. During the 2016 referendum campaign Boris Johnson and Vote Leave said that, if the UK left the EU, VAT on fuel would go. Fuel duty has been frozen in this budget, but - like other Brexit promises - the pledge to scrap VAT on fuel seems to have vanished.
Reducing VAT on home energy was the effing poster child for Brexiters. Now of course they "could" have zero rated (sovereignty - huzzah!) it but no sane person thought they ever would.
As @RochdalePioneers keeps pointing out - we voted to allow men to become pregnant. That they can't become pregnant is neither here nor there.
These measures also bury what was arguably George Osborne’s major legacy as chancellor; he dragged corporation tax down during his six years in office, but Rishi Sunak’s plans would largely reverse the Osborne cuts, with the rise generating an extra £16bn for the Treasury by the end of this parliament. This is much closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s policy for corporation tax at the 2019 election than Boris Johnson’s. Sunak’s plans would also raise an extra £6bn a year from income tax by the end of this parliament, through fiscal drag, with more people dragged into the higher rate. Disraeli once said the secret to a “sound Conservative government” was “Tory men and Whig measures”. Perhaps this is what they look like.
And yet, as Sir Keir Starmer argued in his response, a Labour budget would be different. There was nothing on social care, little on welfare (the row about cutting the £20-per-week uplift has just been postponed) and little that sounded truly transformational in terms of work and learning.
Sunak ended with an announcement intended about free ports to persuade the public there will be a Brexit dividend. This was the first budget since the UK properly left the ambit of the EU. During the 2016 referendum campaign Boris Johnson and Vote Leave said that, if the UK left the EU, VAT on fuel would go. Fuel duty has been frozen in this budget, but - like other Brexit promises - the pledge to scrap VAT on fuel seems to have vanished.
Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't have balanced the budget; he would have dealt with the security services and our armed forces with such suspicion and contempt that Russia, China and Iran, and other extremists, would have had a field day. So we'd have got an inflationary boom, with an almighty crash, coupled with nasty security incidents, and lots of general incompetence and nasty culture war aggro along the way.
Where I agree with you is that the Budget was unambitious on post-Brexit reforms, except the NIB, some cosmetic and some straws in the wind on financial services.
I want to see a top-to-toe regulatory review of everything. Is it coming? Will it ever come?
My conclusion from this committee is that Sturgeon may be telling the truth, in part. She wasn’t involved in a conspiracy - she genuinely pursued it for the complainers and MeToo. However there WAS a lower level ‘conspiracy’ - call it ‘over-eagerness to please the Leader’ - which she discovered to her horror. Everything since has been cover-up
There is no way tax per mile will work because it will show people how much tax people are actually paying, which is precisely what fuel duty is designed to avoid. People buy fuel and when they pay the bill they think they're paying for fuel, even if they're aware of the fact they don't really think too much about the fact that most of what they're paying is pure tax and not fuel.
Take the tax alone and present that as a bill, not buried alongside fuel or anything else, and people will not accept that. It will be even more unpopular than fuel duty.
A tax per kWh works for the same way fuel duty works which is why it seems to me the only viable replacement: it buries the tax so that when people pay their tax they think they're paying their electricity bill, not tax.
These measures also bury what was arguably George Osborne’s major legacy as chancellor; he dragged corporation tax down during his six years in office, but Rishi Sunak’s plans would largely reverse the Osborne cuts, with the rise generating an extra £16bn for the Treasury by the end of this parliament. This is much closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s policy for corporation tax at the 2019 election than Boris Johnson’s. Sunak’s plans would also raise an extra £6bn a year from income tax by the end of this parliament, through fiscal drag, with more people dragged into the higher rate. Disraeli once said the secret to a “sound Conservative government” was “Tory men and Whig measures”. Perhaps this is what they look like.
And yet, as Sir Keir Starmer argued in his response, a Labour budget would be different. There was nothing on social care, little on welfare (the row about cutting the £20-per-week uplift has just been postponed) and little that sounded truly transformational in terms of work and learning.
Sunak ended with an announcement intended about free ports to persuade the public there will be a Brexit dividend. This was the first budget since the UK properly left the ambit of the EU. During the 2016 referendum campaign Boris Johnson and Vote Leave said that, if the UK left the EU, VAT on fuel would go. Fuel duty has been frozen in this budget, but - like other Brexit promises - the pledge to scrap VAT on fuel seems to have vanished.
Reducing VAT on home energy was the effing poster child for Brexiters. Now of course they "could" have zero rated (sovereignty - huzzah!) it but no sane person thought they ever would.
As @RochdalePioneers keeps pointing out - we voted to allow men to become pregnant. That they can't become pregnant is neither here nor there.
Goodness, be glad you didn't say that on Twitter.
You'd be brandished with the transphobic stick - by hordes.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
I understand and share your views on this. But like Canute I have to point out the futility of trying to hold back the tide. Most new drivers are now opting for the black boxes in their cars which monitor everything they do and where they go to get themselves cheaper insurance. It is the only way most of them can afford to even get insurance.
So the public view is changing. Combined with the ubiquity of mobile phones and other trackable devices I am afraid that people like us who still try to hold on to the illusion of living offline, away from governmental scrutiny, are becoming dinosaurs.
This isn't in line with my experience. My view is that telematics has been a miserable failure, and other than cases where they physically can't buy a policy without one, drivers tend to opt out.
It's worth remembering that telematics doesn't reduce insurance costs in aggregate - in fact it increases them, because the cost of the box and monitoring driving ability is non-zero. All it does is help the better drivers to prove they're deserving of lower premiums faster than they would normally (ie by not claiming over the course of several years). The worse than average drivers (50% of the population) will see no benefit from informing their insurer of the fact.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
I understand and share your views on this. But like Canute I have to point out the futility of trying to hold back the tide. Most new drivers are now opting for the black boxes in their cars which monitor everything they do and where they go to get themselves cheaper insurance. It is the only way most of them can afford to even get insurance.
So the public view is changing. Combined with the ubiquity of mobile phones and other trackable devices I am afraid that people like us who still try to hold on to the illusion of living offline, away from governmental scrutiny, are becoming dinosaurs.
This isn't in line with my experience. My view is that telematics has been a miserable failure, and other than cases where they physically can't buy a policy without one, drivers tend to opt out.
It's worth remembering that telematics doesn't reduce insurance costs in aggregate - in fact it increases them, because the cost of the box and monitoring driving ability is non-zero. All it does is help the better drivers to prove they're deserving of lower premiums faster than they would normally (ie by not claiming over the course of several years). The worse than average drivers (50% of the population) will see no benefit from informing their insurer of the fact.
Well my experience with my daughter is exactly as I set out. She had the black box fitted when she passed the test and her initial year's insurance was £1300. It more than halved when she renewed for the second year based on her performance during that first year. The incentives were so large she was more than willing to pay attention to how she drove.
He doesn't even get one of those. The only inland Freeport is East Midlands Airport which is well outside the West Midlands.
Is this the Freeport which supposedly the EU was preventing us from having?
So he said. I have no idea of the truth of that because I suppose it depends entirely on what he means as a Freeport compared to what the EU means.
Personally... I think the age of Freeports is rather behind us. They are great for emerging economies with high tariff barriers looking to learn a little bit about the world. But given the UK has relatively low tariffs, and that stuff finished in free port manufacturing zones is often exempted from FTAs, I think they are likely to remain unused except for very low value add "putting stuff in boxes".
Rees Mogg's eyes have a glint when he mentions them and this for me obviates the need to do any further research on the topic.
I'm not sure this is the sort of thing that will change minds vis a vis Scottish independence. The fundamental problem for unionists in Scotland though is that the Nats have been united whereas they haven't. That could change now. Leaving aside the differences over Salmond/Surgeon there has to be conflict over when, say, to call another referendum. As soon as possible strikes me as complete madness in the current economic climate and surely there are quite a few Indy sympathisers who would agree?
These measures also bury what was arguably George Osborne’s major legacy as chancellor; he dragged corporation tax down during his six years in office, but Rishi Sunak’s plans would largely reverse the Osborne cuts, with the rise generating an extra £16bn for the Treasury by the end of this parliament. This is much closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s policy for corporation tax at the 2019 election than Boris Johnson’s. Sunak’s plans would also raise an extra £6bn a year from income tax by the end of this parliament, through fiscal drag, with more people dragged into the higher rate. Disraeli once said the secret to a “sound Conservative government” was “Tory men and Whig measures”. Perhaps this is what they look like.
And yet, as Sir Keir Starmer argued in his response, a Labour budget would be different. There was nothing on social care, little on welfare (the row about cutting the £20-per-week uplift has just been postponed) and little that sounded truly transformational in terms of work and learning.
Sunak ended with an announcement intended about free ports to persuade the public there will be a Brexit dividend. This was the first budget since the UK properly left the ambit of the EU. During the 2016 referendum campaign Boris Johnson and Vote Leave said that, if the UK left the EU, VAT on fuel would go. Fuel duty has been frozen in this budget, but - like other Brexit promises - the pledge to scrap VAT on fuel seems to have vanished.
Reducing VAT on home energy was the effing poster child for Brexiters. Now of course they "could" have zero rated (sovereignty - huzzah!) it but no sane person thought they ever would.
As @RochdalePioneers keeps pointing out - we voted to allow men to become pregnant. That they can't become pregnant is neither here nor there.
Goodness, be glad you didn't say that on Twitter.
You'd be brandished with the transphobic stick - by hordes.
Budget: the CPI inflation assumption (that it stays at or below 2.0% until 2026) looks rocky to me. A 1% increase in RPI increases debt costs by £7bn, and 1% in gilts by £9 billion. Rather sensitive. This could budget could be out by £50-60bn by FY2025/26.
The corp tax and income tax freezes yield £25bn a year by 2025, so that's big money. IHT also frozen for an extra 0.4bn yield. If it gets desperate he could up VAT to 22%, I guess to give an extra £10-12bn per year.
Also, has he factored in a progressive degradation of fuel duty? I think he's just TBC'ed it in this. I'd have thought it'd be 10-15% below current levels by 2025, 25-35% by 2030 and 60-70% by 2040. That's probably a £3-4bn hole by 2026 alone.
Carbon neutrality will have a serious fiscal cost, although cheaper than the environmental one of course.
I think this is another area where he has to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. There is no longer a need to encourage drivers to take up electric cars - they are going to be forced to do so within 9 years anyway. So he should now look to move to payment per mile for driving with all cars being classed the same. Replace fuel duty and road tax with a completely new system based on how much you drive. If you are worried about the impact on rural areas then you can tinker with rates but basically it will be one system for all with perhaps some regional variation.
If my clock is read once a year at MOT time, to reconcile my road tax bill for the next year, fine.
But, I do not want to be satellite tracked and monitored for real-time road pricing.
No way do I want any part of the Government knowing where I'm going, when or why, or for how long. Nor do I expect to have to explain myself to anyone: the prospects for abuse are legion.
The fuzz would have dug all over it during this latest lockdown.
Yep that is an issue but there really is no alternative that I can think of.
That said if you carry a mobile phone then the ability to do that is already there.
The alternative is an annual reading of the clock for a road tax bill, or a form of a self-assessment of mileage reconciled by the clock at the end. Just as we do for income tax.
Road pricing can be used only for congestion zones or smart motorways.
You can leave the phone at home, turn off the phone off, turn location services and data off on your phone, and, even if you don't do any of that the police/ Government need to pursue a legal route to access the data with a test.
Real time tracking and pricing? No way. I'll just get an old car that doesn't have or it or avoid driving.
I understand and share your views on this. But like Canute I have to point out the futility of trying to hold back the tide. Most new drivers are now opting for the black boxes in their cars which monitor everything they do and where they go to get themselves cheaper insurance. It is the only way most of them can afford to even get insurance.
So the public view is changing. Combined with the ubiquity of mobile phones and other trackable devices I am afraid that people like us who still try to hold on to the illusion of living offline, away from governmental scrutiny, are becoming dinosaurs.
This isn't in line with my experience. My view is that telematics has been a miserable failure, and other than cases where they physically can't buy a policy without one, drivers tend to opt out.
It's worth remembering that telematics doesn't reduce insurance costs in aggregate - in fact it increases them, because the cost of the box and monitoring driving ability is non-zero. All it does is help the better drivers to prove they're deserving of lower premiums faster than they would normally (ie by not claiming over the course of several years). The worse than average drivers (50% of the population) will see no benefit from informing their insurer of the fact.
Well my experience with my daughter is exactly as I set out. She had the black box fitted when she passed the test and her initial year's insurance was £1300. It more than halved when she renewed for the second year based on her performance during that first year. The incentives were so large she was more than willing to pay attention to how she drove.
That's great to hear!
The questions are: 1) will she be happy to keep the box long term, or will she get rid as soon as the incentive is no longer meaningful, and 2) is the proportion of young drivers who'll benefit to a similar extent high enough to make the tech widespread?
Comments
Anyone buying a new Ford, Tesla, GM, etc., today has already agreed to let Google and Amazon look at your location history so as to work out what things to sell you.
Or, alternatively, she is now so tired and weakened she’s easier to hit
Or both
If the Government gave a choice - tax on the clock, or per KwH (at a slightly higher rate maybe) or real-time road pricing - I might accept it. But, I want that choice because monopolies are dangerous, and I simply don't trust them.
The new technological/AI age cannot be one where all agency and control is stripped away from the citizen in the name of "efficiency".
Some things are more important.
It's worth remembering that telematics doesn't reduce insurance costs in aggregate - in fact it increases them, because the cost of the box and monitoring driving ability is non-zero. All it does is help the better drivers to prove they're deserving of lower premiums faster than they would normally (ie by not claiming over the course of several years). The worse than average drivers (50% of the population) will see no benefit from informing their insurer of the fact.
What I do know is that this day started well for Sturgeon but this last session has been dreadful for her. It is also absolutely gripping.
When you ask how they plan to avoid the typical issue of local relocations into the area the answer you usually get is um, errr....
However it's interesting that Teesside International is included as a few of the leasing firms have been setting up plane servicing / refurbishment hubs there - so it's not all bad as this will remove a lot of paperwork there.
I don't see why I should "accept" the government - who have the power to arrest, detain or fine me - having access to all of my data in real-time just because it's increasingly a feature in the private commercial space.
I want both regulatory spheres dealt with.
This has a long way to go
The upset when you make calculations about the CO2 efficiency of some public transport vs ZEVs, is quite entertains. Also revealing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmrRMK84GU4&ab_channel=JustInsure
And she clearly knows it.
My solar array generates enough lecky for 15,000 Tesla miles per year. And a Tesla is like a Panzer.
Far better than the hole the Spanish dug themselves into where they ended up taxing solar panels.
Drowning.
These measures also bury what was arguably George Osborne’s major legacy as chancellor; he dragged corporation tax down during his six years in office, but Rishi Sunak’s plans would largely reverse the Osborne cuts, with the rise generating an extra £16bn for the Treasury by the end of this parliament. This is much closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s policy for corporation tax at the 2019 election than Boris Johnson’s. Sunak’s plans would also raise an extra £6bn a year from income tax by the end of this parliament, through fiscal drag, with more people dragged into the higher rate. Disraeli once said the secret to a “sound Conservative government” was “Tory men and Whig measures”. Perhaps this is what they look like.
And yet, as Sir Keir Starmer argued in his response, a Labour budget would be different. There was nothing on social care, little on welfare (the row about cutting the £20-per-week uplift has just been postponed) and little that sounded truly transformational in terms of work and learning.
Sunak ended with an announcement intended about free ports to persuade the public there will be a Brexit dividend. This was the first budget since the UK properly left the ambit of the EU. During the 2016 referendum campaign Boris Johnson and Vote Leave said that, if the UK left the EU, VAT on fuel would go. Fuel duty has been frozen in this budget, but - like other Brexit promises - the pledge to scrap VAT on fuel seems to have vanished.
Besides which several alternatives have already been outlined on this thread.
Well, yes, Nicola
They could even work out which TV channel you are watching.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00326
As @RochdalePioneers keeps pointing out - we voted to allow men to become pregnant. That they can't become pregnant is neither here nor there.
How, out of interest, are people listening otherwise - is it live on LBC?
It's a shame there are no written notes.
Oh...
Where I agree with you is that the Budget was unambitious on post-Brexit reforms, except the NIB, some cosmetic and some straws in the wind on financial services.
I want to see a top-to-toe regulatory review of everything. Is it coming? Will it ever come?
I’m afraid you’ve missed the best. Absolutely compelling
Take the tax alone and present that as a bill, not buried alongside fuel or anything else, and people will not accept that. It will be even more unpopular than fuel duty.
A tax per kWh works for the same way fuel duty works which is why it seems to me the only viable replacement: it buries the tax so that when people pay their tax they think they're paying their electricity bill, not tax.
Edinburgh airport thing smear again.
You'd be brandished with the transphobic stick - by hordes.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1367144586867597317?s=21
https://twitter.com/ArtMinx1/status/1367146582915878917
Suspended until 16.30
The questions are: 1) will she be happy to keep the box long term, or will she get rid as soon as the incentive is no longer meaningful, and 2) is the proportion of young drivers who'll benefit to a similar extent high enough to make the tech widespread?
And it started so boring
It was like a script, the cool calm woman slowly crumbling, then finally collapsing into tears