Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
JD Vance reassures an audience that America's allies are "suffering more than we are" with oil and gas prices in the fallout from America's war on Iran. https://x.com/europa/status/2034410548222116272
I have the impression India and Pakistan shelling each other on a weekly if not Daily basis.
When you look at it, neighbours are not very neighbourly. India Pakistan, Greece Turkey, Scotland Ireland Wales v England. The bad bit is lives of minorities - not just “no dogs and no Irish” signs in windows when looking for a bed for the night, but gunman who have murdered minorities being installed as President’s and Prime Ministers.
Why can’t people love their neighbours and love their minorities?
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The “negotiations” included such gems as
- Japan would not be occupied - The Japanese military would remain - The conquests wouldn’t be given up - The Japanese offered the Russians to team up to fight the US.
The US was reading all this via ULTRA.
Essentially, the Japanese “peace faction” wanted the war to be stopped, but Japan keep everything. Including Korea and China
Ah, so not unlike Stauffenberg and co. regarding Germany?
The German opposition peace plans were optimistic. The Japanese “peace plans” were at 90 degrees to reality.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Is that an "Unusual take"?
In the context that use of nuclear weapons is seen as horrific, I think it is.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
They surrendered after the Russkies took over Manchuria and North Korea.
That was a factor - the other was the allied guarantee regarding the person of the Emperor. The Japanese would never accept the notion of the Emperor being put on trial for example - once the Americans ruled out full "regime change" (to use the vernacular), those wishing to surrender in the Imperial Government had the upper hand.
The Japanese were stunned by the speed by which the Red Army had shattered the Kwantung Army and it raised questions as to what a Russian landing on Hokkaido would mean. Finally, the Japanese thought or hoped the Americans only had one A-Bomb - the use of a second device plus misinformation led them to think the entirety of the Home Islands could be attacked with atomic weapons.
I have the impression India and Pakistan shelling each other on a weekly if not Daily basis.
When you look at it, neighbours are not very neighbourly. India Pakistan, Greece Turkey, Scotland Ireland Wales v England. The bad bit is lives of minorities - not just “no dogs and no Irish” signs in windows when looking for a bed for the night, but gunman who have murdered minorities being installed as President’s and Prime Ministers.
Why can’t people love their neighbours and love their minorities?
Sultan Ahmad Baheen, former Afghan ambassador to China, suggested that the Pakistani attacks coincided with the 2026 Iran war to minimize international attention on the airstrikes. He claimed that "Pakistan does not want a fully stable and independent Afghanistan" in the long term, but rather a political landscape in Kabul that remains dependent on Islamabad.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
It would be both.
And not just energy. If Gulf gas production is further targeted in the way it was this week, and we're effectively without it for several years, then agriculture and industrial chemical would also be severely impacted.
The world would adapt, of course, but that adaptation would be painful, and the pain would not be evenly spread. The UK would feel it quite badly, I think.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
The question is for how long does this conflict go on. IF it ended tomorrow, oil and gas prices would quickly retreat to pre-conflict levels and while there would be short term inflation, it wouldn't last too long.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
We've seen that in the recent past in South West.
Thousands turn up Friday and Saturday fill up for trips for the week use up Monday delivery.
On Thursday night they fill up to go home Friday or Saturday.
Repeat Cycle Repeat
8 weeks of hell
Locals can't get enough fuel Prices rise 15% anyway retailers cash in.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Is that an "Unusual take"?
In the context that use of nuclear weapons is seen as horrific, I think it is.
The context is a conference with the leader of a country where nuclear weapons are anathema, and Trump being oblivious to that (or not giving a shit). The historical justification, or otherwise, is pretty irrelevant.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
The question is for how long does this conflict go on. IF it ended tomorrow, oil and gas prices would quickly retreat to pre-conflict levels and while there would be short term inflation, it wouldn't last too long.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Oil won’t be at $105 a barrel if things continue as they are until Easter.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
Are you a fanatical Christian?
No I am C of E and not a conservative evangelical either but high church Catholic Anglican
Sorry I’m high church Catholic Anglican and the type of Christian you are has got zilch to do with your politics or viewpoint and everything to do with the type of church service you prefer.
Around here your viewpoint would have had quiet (and loud) words said if your viewpoint was being said outloud suggesting you went elsewhere
Half right but not exactly right, liberal Catholic Anglicans or Lutherans for example take a different stance on LGBT rights and female ordination to conservative Anglo Catholic Anglicans or Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians and to RCs on divorce despite all of them preferring more high church services.
Conservative evangelicals in the Church of England or evangelicals who are Baptists or Pentecostals or Free Church also take a different stance on LGBT rights than say open evangelicals in the C of E or Methodists or Quakers or evangelicals in the Church of Scotland do despite all of them preferring more low church services
I have the impression India and Pakistan shelling each other on a weekly if not Daily basis.
When you look at it, neighbours are not very neighbourly. India Pakistan, Greece Turkey, Scotland Ireland Wales v England. The bad bit is lives of minorities - not just “no dogs and no Irish” signs in windows when looking for a bed for the night, but gunman who have murdered minorities being installed as President’s and Prime Ministers.
Why can’t people love their neighbours and love their minorities?
Sultan Ahmad Baheen, former Afghan ambassador to China, suggested that the Pakistani attacks coincided with the 2026 Iran war to minimize international attention on the airstrikes. He claimed that "Pakistan does not want a fully stable and independent Afghanistan" in the long term, but rather a political landscape in Kabul that remains dependent on Islamabad.
To be mischievous on a Friday afternoon, I changed a few words:
He claimed that "England does not want a fully stable and independent Scotland" in the long term, but rather a political landscape in Edinburgh that remains dependent on London.
"I bent down and petted him, and all of a sudden we heard this grrrrr, like that. So the trainer says get up very slowly and back up. So the tiger did, he slowly got up and backed out"
Reports of Chuck Norris’s death are misleading. He merely roundhouse-kicked his way into the afterlife.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
And iirc a portion of the Japanese military didn't want to surrender even after the *second* bomb and tried to stop the surrender.
At the war cabinet meeting after Nagasaki, they considered the fact that
- the Americans had sunk pretty much the whole navy - The Americans had sunk pretty much all the merchant ships. - The allies were advancing everywhere - The Russians had entered the war. - Nagasaki proved that that the hoped for fig-leaf - that nuclear weapons took years to make each, was wrong. The Americans had a production line. - the rice harvest had failed. Everyone was going to starve - The options were peace. Or arm all the population with bamboo spears to fight the invasion.
The war cabinet voted 3-3. The Emperor broke the rules and announced he was voting for peace.
The Japanese military responded by attempting a coup. Which was only foiled because the blackout from a conventional bombing raid by the Americans meant they couldn’t find the Emperor. In order for him to have an accident
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
Are you a fanatical Christian?
No I am C of E and not a conservative evangelical either but high church Catholic Anglican
Sorry I’m high church Catholic Anglican and the type of Christian you are has got zilch to do with your politics or viewpoint and everything to do with the type of church service you prefer.
Around here your viewpoint would have had quiet (and loud) words said if your viewpoint was being said outloud suggesting you went elsewhere
Half right but not exactly right, liberal Catholic Anglicans or Lutherans for example take a different stance on LGBT rights and female ordination to Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians and to RCs on divorce despite all of them preferring more high church services.
Conservative evangelicals in the Church of England or evangelicals who are Baptists or Pentecostals or Free Church also take a different stance on LGBT rights than say open evangelicals in the C of E or Methodists or Quakers or evangelicals in the Church of Scotland do despite all of them preferring more low church services
You are once again combining church service style preferences with your political views.
Turn up at the high CofE churches around here and the wardens would be suggesting you go elsewhere due to your viewpoints upsetting most of the old regular attendees. Most of them have life experiences or know people with life experiences which make your viewpoints unpalatable to say the least
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
Is there no leader in the world prepared to tell the obviously insane Donald Trump that they want nothing more to do with the US and would support taking Trump and his henchmen to the Hague together with Netanyahu?
I can't see a downside. Those who doubt his insanity listen to the report of his attempt to invade Greenland on the lunchtime news. Not since Chance the Gardener in "Being There" has someone more unsuitable been put in charge of anything let alone a country with nuclear weapons.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
There was an interesting podcast from someone (IFS?) about this a few months back.
The problem with the triple lock is primarily that it's calculated annually without any smoothing. If inflation hits 10% one year, and wages also grow at 10% the same year, the triple lock goes up 10%. If inflation goes up 10% one year and wages 10% the following year, then the triple lock goes up 21%. despite inflation and wages having only gone up 10%.
The effect is also really difficult to model into the future, as not only do you have to predict the broad trends of the future (difficult), but you also have to know how closely wage spikes will lag inflation (virtually impossible). If you get a full blown wage-price spiral going, the triple lock doesn't outpace either by much, whereas a short sharp shock in inflation, followed by a matching spike in wage growth 12 months later rockets the triple lock upwards.
As a result, most of the government modeling of the triple lock assumes that wage growth and inflation move together within the same financial year, which makes the triple lock seem fairly inexpensive. (The more I discover about treasury modeling, the more I realise we're governed by imbeciles.)
This in turn means that if the chancellor cans the triple lock, on paper it doesn't save much money, so they can't do what all recent chancellors are won't to do as soon as any "extra" cash arrives, and immediately rush off and spend loads more (or if one is very lucky, even cut taxes a little), as the OBR won't credit them with any extra "headroom*" for binning the triple lock.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, with all it's current volatility, the state pension keeps rocketing upwards. But that's different, because the modeling keeps saying that won't happen in the future....!
* "Headroom" - the tiny difference between the obscene amount the chancellor is borrowing, and the obscene amount of borrowing at which it is judged the bond market will completely take fright.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
The question is for how long does this conflict go on. IF it ended tomorrow, oil and gas prices would quickly retreat to pre-conflict levels and while there would be short term inflation, it wouldn't last too long.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Oil won’t be at $105 a barrel if things continue as they are until Easter.
The petrol price at my local Tesco's garage has been steady since Monday at 139.9 but Diesel has moved up during the week and is now 157.9p.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
The question is for how long does this conflict go on. IF it ended tomorrow, oil and gas prices would quickly retreat to pre-conflict levels and while there would be short term inflation, it wouldn't last too long.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Oil won’t be at $105 a barrel if things continue as they are until Easter.
The petrol price at my local Tesco's garage has been steady since Monday at 139.9 but Diesel has moved up during the week and is now 157.9p.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
Yes, he's getting to the pointless damage bit a great deal more quickly.
But it's interesting you're still trying to rationalise it in line with some 'principle'.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
There was an interesting podcast from someone (IFS?) about this a few months back.
The problem with the triple lock is primarily that it's calculated annually without any smoothing. If inflation hits 10% one year, and wages also grow at 10% the same year, the triple lock goes up 10%. If inflation goes up 10% one year and wages 10% the following year, then the triple lock goes up 21%. despite inflation and wages having only gone up 10%.
The effect is also really difficult to model into the future, as not only do you have to predict the broad trends of the future (difficult), but you also have to know how closely wage spikes will lag inflation (virtually impossible). If you get a full blown wage-price spiral going, the triple lock doesn't outpace either by much, whereas a short sharp shock in inflation, followed by a matching spike in wage growth 12 months later rockets the triple lock upwards.
As a result, most of the government modeling of the triple lock assumes that wage growth and inflation move together within the same financial year, which makes the triple lock seem fairly inexpensive. (The more I discover about treasury modeling, the more I realise we're governed by imbeciles.)
This in turn means that if the chancellor cans the triple lock, on paper it doesn't save much money, so they can't do what all recent chancellors are won't to do as soon as any "extra" cash arrives, and immediately rush off and spend loads more (or if one is very lucky, even cut taxes a little), as the OBR won't credit them with any extra "headroom*" for binning the triple lock.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, with all it's current volatility, the state pension keeps rocketing upwards. But that's different, because the modeling keeps saying that won't happen in the future....!
* "Headroom" - the tiny difference between the obscene amount the chancellor is borrowing, and the obscene amount of borrowing at which it is judged the bond market will completely take fright.
A great example of assumptions (wage inflation being rapid) not hitting the reality of the real world
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
The question is for how long does this conflict go on. IF it ended tomorrow, oil and gas prices would quickly retreat to pre-conflict levels and while there would be short term inflation, it wouldn't last too long.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Oil won’t be at $105 a barrel if things continue as they are until Easter.
The petrol price at my local Tesco's garage has been steady since Monday at 139.9 but Diesel has moved up during the week and is now 157.9p.
That’s cheap round here Diesel is £1.65
I saw 1.66 for diesel at BP A12 Eastern Avenue westbound, but eastbound, almost directly opposite, is only 1.62.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
Yes, he's bombing with no obvious purpose as opposed to occupying with no obvious purpose.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
"When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices".... so everything I learnt about capitalism is a lie?
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
How did Afghanistan play out between 1979 when the USSR first invaded and 2020 when the US left?
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
How did Afghanistan play out between 1979 when the USSR first invaded and 2020 when the US left?
Oooh, tricky question... Is the answer: very well?
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
Tehran, population 15 million? If williamglenn is a moron I'm not sure what that makes you.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
"When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices".... so everything I learnt about capitalism is a lie?
Energy is very price inelastic - to the extent that I suspect it would be economic destruction as discretionary spending is cut that reduces demand more than anything else
I would have to find the papers but I’m sure the oil crisis has been shown to be the cause of the Stagflation we got afterwards in the later 70s
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
We know that the Japanese high command and government met after the Hiroshima bomb and decided not to surrender. It was only after the second that they realised they had to. So I don't think there is any question that the bombs were unfortunately necessary.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
People want lots of things that are unwise, unaffordable, or unattainable. Sometimes, leadership means saying “I want, doesn’t get.”
I think politicians have lost sight of the fact that in the past the UK public have been pretty good at looking at the end of a parliament despite this or that tough decision, is the country better off or heading in the right direction. 2010 lots of decision that would poll terribly and stoked by media "back to Wigan pier" nonsense, but Tories won 2015.
What the public seem to hate more is "we are going to do x, its a tough decision but we have to do", 2 months later, "sorry not doing it, yes I know we said we needed it to raise billions and without it we would go bust, but not doing it now, found the money down the back of the sofa". As the means either you were lying to begin with and / or you actually can't make decisions and stick to them.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
"When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices".... so everything I learnt about capitalism is a lie?
Price inelasticity means that people have to get to work, they have to get food delivered etc. So high prices don’t decrease demand immediately by a lot.
So in the short term, you get lots of inflation.
What happens, if it persists, is that substitutes are bought in. But changing from an ICE car to EV takes time and money. So the process is over the medium and longer term.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
"When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices".... so everything I learnt about capitalism is a lie?
Price inelasticity means that people have to get to work, they have to get food delivered etc. So high prices don’t decrease demand immediately by a lot.
So in the short term, you get lots of inflation.
What happens, if it persists, is that substitutes are bought in. But changing from an ICE car to EV takes time and money. So the process is over the medium and longer term.
This is GCSE economics.
Also when the price of electricity is set by the price of Gas as is often the case in the UK - the EV I’m planning to buy this weekend may not be that much cheaper
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
"When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices".... so everything I learnt about capitalism is a lie?
Price inelasticity means that people have to get to work, they have to get food delivered etc. So high prices don’t decrease demand immediately by a lot.
So in the short term, you get lots of inflation.
What happens, if it persists, is that substitutes are bought in. But changing from an ICE car to EV takes time and money. So the process is over the medium and longer term.
This is GCSE economics.
This was written 19 years ago, but is (still) remarkably accurate:
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
Or new, alternative, sources are brought into play over time as well as driving more efficient use of energy and oil based products.
Short term pain, but in time other sources will come in. Both fossil and renewable. High prices does this and makes it more cost effective to exploit these. For example there is a colossal amount of LNG reserves around Africa and only some of those are exploited.
We managed with Russia and the spike then. We need to manage again. This isn’t ending soon.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
Tehran, population 15 million? If williamglenn is a moron I'm not sure what that makes you.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
"When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices".... so everything I learnt about capitalism is a lie?
Price inelasticity means that people have to get to work, they have to get food delivered etc. So high prices don’t decrease demand immediately by a lot.
So in the short term, you get lots of inflation.
What happens, if it persists, is that substitutes are bought in. But changing from an ICE car to EV takes time and money. So the process is over the medium and longer term.
This is GCSE economics.
Also when the price of electricity is set by the price of Gas as is often the case in the UK - the EV I’m planning to buy this weekend may not be that much cheaper
What are you thinking of getting ? Some very attractive pricing on sensible 2nd hand EVs at the moment.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
Or new, alternative, sources are brought into play over time as well as driving more efficient use of energy and oil based products.
Short term pain, but in time other sources will come in. Both fossil and renewable. High prices does this and makes it more cost effective to exploit these. For example there is a colossal amount of LNG reserves around Africa and only some of those are exploited.
We managed with Russia and the spike then. We need to manage again. This isn’t ending soon.
We solved the lack of gas from Russia by buying it from Qatar.
We can no longer get gas from Qatar and Russia is still (to anyone without the surname Trump) persona non grata.
And I don’t think there are any solutions available in the short (next winter) and even medium terms (2027-8,28-9)
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
The question is for how long does this conflict go on. IF it ended tomorrow, oil and gas prices would quickly retreat to pre-conflict levels and while there would be short term inflation, it wouldn't last too long.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Oil won’t be at $105 a barrel if things continue as they are until Easter.
The petrol price at my local Tesco's garage has been steady since Monday at 139.9 but Diesel has moved up during the week and is now 157.9p.
Unfortunately we produce enough petrol of our own but rely far more on imports for deisel
The Loser is not the only American politician who has followed irrational policies in recent years.
As George Will showed in this dissection of Gavin Newsom.
Californians are voting with U-Hauls:
Immigration is the sincerest form of disparagement of the place fled from. California, which has gained congressional seats after every decennial census since attaining statehood in 1850, probably will lose four after 2030. Texas probably will gain four, thanks partly to disgust with the continuity of Newsom’s governance with California’s “blue state model” of subservience to public-employee unions.
(Links omitted.)
In part, no doubt, because of these numbers:
California has the nation’s highest unemployment rate and, not coincidentally, a $16.90 per hour minimum wage, 2.3 times the federal minimum. California is tied with Louisiana for the highest poverty rate, taking account of the cost of living in both places. California’s highest-in-the-nation gas tax is more than double the median state tax. In 2024, California’s average retail price for electricity was more than double the national average. Because of zoning and other scarcity-producing regulations, the median sale price of a California home is approaching $900,000.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
"When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices".... so everything I learnt about capitalism is a lie?
Price inelasticity means that people have to get to work, they have to get food delivered etc. So high prices don’t decrease demand immediately by a lot.
So in the short term, you get lots of inflation.
What happens, if it persists, is that substitutes are bought in. But changing from an ICE car to EV takes time and money. So the process is over the medium and longer term.
This is GCSE economics.
Also when the price of electricity is set by the price of Gas as is often the case in the UK - the EV I’m planning to buy this weekend may not be that much cheaper
What are you thinking of getting ? Some very attractive pricing on sensible 2nd hand EVs at the moment.
Something from the VW (Cupra / Skoda / Ford) family but can’t work out what.
I quite like the Capri but it’s a bit long given that my go to for a decade was a Mini but I need more range than a mini.
I did nearly get a lease Smart Brabus in January but the lease deal had gone by the time I made my mind up
The other option is Renault but you don’t get the 30-40% discounts you get with an ex demonstrator Ford / VW / Cupra
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Is that an "Unusual take"?
In the context that use of nuclear weapons is seen as horrific, I think it is.
The context is a conference with the leader of a country where nuclear weapons are anathema, and Trump being oblivious to that (or not giving a shit). The historical justification, or otherwise, is pretty irrelevant.
Given that Trump also asked the prime minister of Japan why he hadn't been warned before the attack on Pearl Harbour, the context is one of extreme confusion.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
Tehran, population 15 million? If williamglenn is a moron I'm not sure what that makes you.
It is perfectly possible to invade Iran. We did in the 1940s. But it would require far more military power than the US or Israel have yet devoted to the theatre. So, whatever @BartholomewRoberts wants to happen, it's currently a very long way from happening.
The 1941 invasion involved troops going over the border from Iraq, Pakistan and what is now Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Today, the US would probably want to team up with Pakistan and Turkey to have much chance of success.
The 1941 invasions involved maybe 70k invading troops against up to 200k Iranian troops. 70k is roughly ten times what the US is sending to the area, and they'd need a lot more than we did in 1941 given the Iranian armed forces are now around 610k (+ 350k reserves). In other words, the current reality is that a full-on invasion is not going to happen. Any "boots on the ground" will be in a very limited sense.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
Or new, alternative, sources are brought into play over time as well as driving more efficient use of energy and oil based products.
Short term pain, but in time other sources will come in. Both fossil and renewable. High prices does this and makes it more cost effective to exploit these. For example there is a colossal amount of LNG reserves around Africa and only some of those are exploited.
We managed with Russia and the spike then. We need to manage again. This isn’t ending soon.
We solved the lack of gas from Russia by buying it from Qatar.
We can no longer get gas from Qatar and Russia is still (to anyone without the surname Trump) persona non grata.
And I don’t think there are any solutions available in the short (next winter) and even medium terms (2027-8,28-9)
Hence why I said short term pain and new sources in the longer term.
Not that it will come to that I expect.
I’m more concerned about fertiliser, Helium, Sulfur and other industrial products we need.
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
People want lots of things that are unwise, unaffordable, or unattainable. Sometimes, leadership means saying “I want, doesn’t get.”
Not if it means political suicide, Labour might be able to get away with means testing the triple lock but not scrapping it altogether
Political suicide is preferable to national suicide. The triple lock is a waste of money, which transfers money from poorer people to richer people.
If we wish to avoid a government bent on revenge socialism, we have to give younger people a better deal.
Most politicians depend on their core vote for their salaries as MPs and ministers though, they would prefer national suicide that keeps their seats than political suicide that loses them their seats.
As I said, means test the triple lock as a compromise so only poor pensioners solely on state pension get it not rich pensioners with big private pensions too.
In any case even Corbyn backed keeping the triple lock, socialists want to hammer the rich, wealthy, high earners and big corporations with tax but not make poor pensioners poorer
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
They surrendered after the Americans allowed the Emperor to stay as nominal head of state. That concession only came after the second bomb.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
The question is for how long does this conflict go on. IF it ended tomorrow, oil and gas prices would quickly retreat to pre-conflict levels and while there would be short term inflation, it wouldn't last too long.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Oil won’t be at $105 a barrel if things continue as they are until Easter.
The petrol price at my local Tesco's garage has been steady since Monday at 139.9 but Diesel has moved up during the week and is now 157.9p.
That’s cheap round here Diesel is £1.65
£1.549 Gateshead Costco, £1.559 Leeds Costco.
So the cost to the retailer in Darlo should be about £1.53 (Assume ~Costco 2p per litre profit...)
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t going to be the price of energy it’s going to be the availability of energy - because if 20% of the world’s energy is no longer available we need to reduce energy usage to offset the reduced supply.
High prices solve high prices
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
When it comes to energy high prices don’t solve high prices, for a lot of things the price would just have to be paid and other things cut to cover the additional expenditure.
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
Or new, alternative, sources are brought into play over time as well as driving more efficient use of energy and oil based products.
Short term pain, but in time other sources will come in. Both fossil and renewable. High prices does this and makes it more cost effective to exploit these. For example there is a colossal amount of LNG reserves around Africa and only some of those are exploited.
We managed with Russia and the spike then. We need to manage again. This isn’t ending soon.
We solved the lack of gas from Russia by buying it from Qatar.
We can no longer get gas from Qatar and Russia is still (to anyone without the surname Trump) persona non grata.
And I don’t think there are any solutions available in the short (next winter) and even medium terms (2027-8,28-9)
In European terms you are correct. In UK terms you are not.
We (the UK) imported almost no gas from Russia prior to the Ukraine invasion and subsequently didn't really have to replace those imports. Prior to the last few weeks Qatar accounted for 1% of our gas imports - about 0.7% of our consumption. The vast majority of our gas imports (over 90%) come from Norway and the US.
"I bent down and petted him, and all of a sudden we heard this grrrrr, like that. So the trainer says get up very slowly and back up. So the tiger did, he slowly got up and backed out"
Reports of Chuck Norris’s death are misleading. He merely roundhouse-kicked his way into the afterlife.
After reports yesterday that Chuck Norris was in the hospital, people were enquiring with concern as to the condition of the hospital.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
People want lots of things that are unwise, unaffordable, or unattainable. Sometimes, leadership means saying “I want, doesn’t get.”
The utter denial of just how bad this is, and the dramatic and difficult decisions that will be forced on the government must be giving Starmer and Reeves nightmares
This is the end of the gravvy train for a great many including pensioners
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
If its really easy with no risk why don't the US just get on with it themselves? Who do you think you are kidding Mr Trump?
Arguably the US is the biggest geopolitical beneficiary of major economic disruption. They are unusually self-sufficient.
High oil prices are really good for energy companies in Texas, but they don't do much for the denizens of Detroit.
It must be a very small list of countries that benefit overall from an oil/gas crisis. And a number of those can't now export them anyway.
I assume Norway is doing very well.
Even then, only about 30% of their GVA is O&G? Depending on how exposed the rest of their economy is then it might only just net out. Hydro + EVs is their strength here.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
Tehran, population 15 million? If williamglenn is a moron I'm not sure what that makes you.
It is perfectly possible to invade Iran. We did in the 1940s. But it would require far more military power than the US or Israel have yet devoted to the theatre. So, whatever @BartholomewRoberts wants to happen, it's currently a very long way from happening.
The 1941 invasion involved troops going over the border from Iraq, Pakistan and what is now Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Today, the US would probably want to team up with Pakistan and Turkey to have much chance of success.
The 1941 invasions involved maybe 70k invading troops against up to 200k Iranian troops. 70k is roughly ten times what the US is sending to the area, and they'd need a lot more than we did in 1941 given the Iranian armed forces are now around 610k (+ 350k reserves). In other words, the current reality is that a full-on invasion is not going to happen. Any "boots on the ground" will be in a very limited sense.
In 1941 it wasn't just us either. It was a joint operation with the Russians who invaded from the Central Asia and the Caucusus. It was also pretty much unopposed. I certainly don't think that would be the case today.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
People want lots of things that are unwise, unaffordable, or unattainable. Sometimes, leadership means saying “I want, doesn’t get.”
Not if it means political suicide, Labour might be able to get away with means testing the triple lock but not scrapping it altogether
They will have no choice and many more unpopular decisions beckon
The days of overborrowing and overspending are simply over
They do, Starmer would be dumped for Rayner in 5 minutes if he tried scrapping the triple lock with Reeves and he knows it, no political leader could get away with it except maybe Polanski as most of his voters are under 35. However even the Greens have pledged to increase the state pension in line with inflation and will just hammer the rich and business and high earners with tax instead to pay for it
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
If its really easy with no risk why don't the US just get on with it themselves? Who do you think you are kidding Mr Trump?
Arguably the US is the biggest geopolitical beneficiary of major economic disruption. They are unusually self-sufficient.
High oil prices are really good for energy companies in Texas, but they don't do much for the denizens of Detroit.
It must be a very small list of countries that benefit overall from an oil/gas crisis. And a number of those can't now export them anyway.
I assume Norway is doing very well.
Even then, only about 30% of their GVA is O&G? Depending on how exposed the rest of their economy is then it might only just net out. Hydro + EVs is their strength here.
They export almost their entire O&G production so I really don't see it being much of an issue for them.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
They surrendered after the Americans allowed the Emperor to stay as nominal head of state. That concession only came after the second bomb.
The Emperor voted to end the war *before* the Americans announced that they might or might not keep the Emperor.
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
People want lots of things that are unwise, unaffordable, or unattainable. Sometimes, leadership means saying “I want, doesn’t get.”
Not if it means political suicide, Labour might be able to get away with means testing the triple lock but not scrapping it altogether
They will have no choice and many more unpopular decisions beckon
The days of overborrowing and overspending are simply over
They do, Starmer would be dumped for Rayner in 5 minutes if he tried scrapping the triple lock with Reeves and he knows it, no political leader could get away with it except maybe Polanski as most of his voters are under 35. However like Corbyn the Greens are pledged to keep the triple lock and will just hammer the rich and business and high earners with tax instead to pay for it
You need to wake up
Everybody is going to be poorer and that is across society
I am not even thinking of labour's internal battles -10 year gilts are closing in on 5.00 %
Well they’ve only sent 50 drones and missiles towards their neighbour to the south across the Strait today, by way of Eid gifts. Let’s see what tomorrow brings.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
Tehran, population 15 million? If williamglenn is a moron I'm not sure what that makes you.
What was debilitating about the 'forever wars' was the lack of dynamic movement one way or the other - just endless occupation with no obvious purpose. What Trump is doing is very different.
You're right, its worse.
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
How big an army do you think it would take to occupy a country the size of Iran with a population of over 90 million?
You would not need to occupy all of Iran.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
Tehran, population 15 million? If williamglenn is a moron I'm not sure what that makes you.
It is perfectly possible to invade Iran. We did in the 1940s. But it would require far more military power than the US or Israel have yet devoted to the theatre. So, whatever @BartholomewRoberts wants to happen, it's currently a very long way from happening.
The 1941 invasion involved troops going over the border from Iraq, Pakistan and what is now Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Today, the US would probably want to team up with Pakistan and Turkey to have much chance of success.
The 1941 invasions involved maybe 70k invading troops against up to 200k Iranian troops. 70k is roughly ten times what the US is sending to the area, and they'd need a lot more than we did in 1941 given the Iranian armed forces are now around 610k (+ 350k reserves). In other words, the current reality is that a full-on invasion is not going to happen. Any "boots on the ground" will be in a very limited sense.
Ah, perhaps there's a dot or so to be joined here. We hear a lot about 'fighting-age men' arriving in small boats. We could re-adopt press-gangs to meet them on the beaches. That would maybe solve a couple of problems.
Of all the people I might have expected to go down the Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens conspiracy theory rabbit hole from this site, I’m pretty sure you would have been close to the bottom of the list!
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Is that an "Unusual take"?
In the context that use of nuclear weapons is seen as horrific, I think it is.
Hang on - justified or not it comfortably fits the category of horrific events in history.
The King's visit must be off now. Calling our military "cowards" is the ultimate insult to our military's leader. Trump must know the effect it will have and probably doesn't care.
Comments
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2034605013205504255
JD Vance reassures an audience that America's allies are "suffering more than we are" with oil and gas prices in the fallout from America's war on Iran.
https://x.com/europa/status/2034410548222116272
When you look at it, neighbours are not very neighbourly. India Pakistan, Greece Turkey, Scotland Ireland Wales v England. The bad bit is lives of minorities - not just “no dogs and no Irish” signs in windows when looking for a bed for the night, but gunman who have murdered minorities being installed as President’s and Prime Ministers.
Why can’t people love their neighbours and love their minorities?
* U.S. TO DEPLOY THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL TROOPS TO THE MIDDLE EAST, THREE U.S. OFFICIALS TELL REUTERS
@reuters.com
The Japanese were stunned by the speed by which the Red Army had shattered the Kwantung Army and it raised questions as to what a Russian landing on Hokkaido would mean. Finally, the Japanese thought or hoped the Americans only had one A-Bomb - the use of a second device plus misinformation led them to think the entirety of the Home Islands could be attacked with atomic weapons.
As the Special Enforcer.
And not just energy. If Gulf gas production is further targeted in the way it was this week, and we're effectively without it for several years, then agriculture and industrial chemical would also be severely impacted.
The world would adapt, of course, but that adaptation would be painful, and the pain would not be evenly spread.
The UK would feel it quite badly, I think.
If we are still in this position at Easter, it starts looking more serious - I don't know where we are with oil supplies and availability, I read India and China are buying up any oil at sea and I don't know our dependency on Gulf oil supplies.
A prolonged period of oil at $100-105 is going to be inflationary but the extent is hard to tell at this time.
It's obviously unfortunate for Reeves for whom some economic indicators were starting to turn a little less unfavourable and while she'sgot someone or something to blame, that doesn't cut much ice electorally if we see petrol moving to £1.50 a litre or higher.
As for "Farage's ability to set the agenda", I think Nick Timothy has set the agenda and given everyone a chance to vent on religion which is always good for several hours of debate.
Thousands turn up Friday and Saturday fill up for trips for the week use up Monday delivery.
On Thursday night they fill up to go home Friday or Saturday.
Repeat
Cycle
Repeat
8 weeks of hell
Locals can't get enough fuel
Prices rise 15% anyway retailers cash in.
The historical justification, or otherwise, is pretty irrelevant.
Demand destruction, and in the longer term new sources, will come but the govt needs to not just print cash and throw money at lt for everyone. Subsidise the genuinely needy.
Conservative evangelicals in the Church of England or evangelicals who are Baptists or Pentecostals or Free Church also take a different stance on LGBT rights than say open evangelicals in the C of E or Methodists or Quakers or evangelicals in the Church of Scotland do despite all of them preferring more low church services
He claimed that "England does not want a fully stable and independent Scotland" in the long term, but rather a political landscape in Edinburgh that remains dependent on London.
https://x.com/timecaptales/status/2034996055973274042?s=20 - in which Chuck himself recounts an encounter with a tiger
"I bent down and petted him, and all of a sudden we heard this grrrrr, like that. So the trainer says get up very slowly and back up. So the tiger did, he slowly got up and backed out"
Reports of Chuck Norris’s death are misleading. He merely roundhouse-kicked his way into the afterlife.
- the Americans had sunk pretty much the whole navy
- The Americans had sunk pretty much all the merchant ships.
- The allies were advancing everywhere
- The Russians had entered the war.
- Nagasaki proved that that the hoped for fig-leaf - that nuclear weapons took years to make each, was wrong. The Americans had a production line.
- the rice harvest had failed. Everyone was going to starve
-
The options were peace. Or arm all the population with bamboo spears to fight the invasion.
The war cabinet voted 3-3. The Emperor broke the rules and announced he was voting for peace.
The Japanese military responded by attempting a coup. Which was only foiled because the blackout from a conventional bombing raid by the Americans meant they couldn’t find the Emperor. In order for him to have an accident
RIP.
Turn up at the high CofE churches around here and the wardens would be suggesting you go elsewhere due to your viewpoints upsetting most of the old regular attendees. Most of them have life experiences or know people with life experiences which make your viewpoints unpalatable to say the least
Energy is remarkably price inelastic - but it is true that energy usage would go down over time, if the factory / pub closes the building doesnt need heat or lighting - and that’s where the reduction would be coming from
I can't see a downside. Those who doubt his insanity listen to the report of his attempt to invade Greenland on the lunchtime news. Not since Chance the Gardener in "Being There" has someone more unsuitable been put in charge of anything let alone a country with nuclear weapons.
In the past 13 months Trump has launched attacks on 13 different countries
At least if we occupied Iran we would have achieved regime change.
Instead we're going through the pain and disruption of a conflict without achieving regime change.
Moron.
The problem with the triple lock is primarily that it's calculated annually without any smoothing. If inflation hits 10% one year, and wages also grow at 10% the same year, the triple lock goes up 10%. If inflation goes up 10% one year and wages 10% the following year, then the triple lock goes up 21%. despite inflation and wages having only gone up 10%.
The effect is also really difficult to model into the future, as not only do you have to predict the broad trends of the future (difficult), but you also have to know how closely wage spikes will lag inflation (virtually impossible). If you get a full blown wage-price spiral going, the triple lock doesn't outpace either by much, whereas a short sharp shock in inflation, followed by a matching spike in wage growth 12 months later rockets the triple lock upwards.
As a result, most of the government modeling of the triple lock assumes that wage growth and inflation move together within the same financial year, which makes the triple lock seem fairly inexpensive. (The more I discover about treasury modeling, the more I realise we're governed by imbeciles.)
This in turn means that if the chancellor cans the triple lock, on paper it doesn't save much money, so they can't do what all recent chancellors are won't to do as soon as any "extra" cash arrives, and immediately rush off and spend loads more (or if one is very lucky, even cut taxes a little), as the OBR won't credit them with any extra "headroom*" for binning the triple lock.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, with all it's current volatility, the state pension keeps rocketing upwards. But that's different, because the modeling keeps saying that won't happen in the future....!
* "Headroom" - the tiny difference between the obscene amount the chancellor is borrowing, and the obscene amount of borrowing at which it is judged the bond market will completely take fright.
But it's interesting you're still trying to rationalise it in line with some 'principle'.
Take the oil fields, Tehran and hand power of the military and governance to Pahlavi and let them deal with it from there.
I would have to find the papers but I’m sure the oil crisis has been shown to be the cause of the Stagflation we got afterwards in the later 70s
What the public seem to hate more is "we are going to do x, its a tough decision but we have to do", 2 months later, "sorry not doing it, yes I know we said we needed it to raise billions and without it we would go bust, but not doing it now, found the money down the back of the sofa". As the means either you were lying to begin with and / or you actually can't make decisions and stick to them.
So in the short term, you get lots of inflation.
What happens, if it persists, is that substitutes are bought in. But changing from an ICE car to EV takes time and money. So the process is over the medium and longer term.
This is GCSE economics.
http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
Short term pain, but in time other sources will come in. Both fossil and renewable. High prices does this and makes it more cost effective to exploit these. For example there is a colossal amount of LNG reserves around Africa and only some of those are exploited.
We managed with Russia and the spike then. We need to manage again. This isn’t ending soon.
https://news.sky.com/story/iran-war-latest-trump-tehran-israel-strikes-us-drone-live-sky-news-13509565
We can no longer get gas from Qatar and Russia is still (to anyone without the surname Trump) persona non grata.
And I don’t think there are any solutions available in the short (next winter) and even medium terms (2027-8,28-9)
As George Will showed in this dissection of Gavin Newsom.
Californians are voting with U-Hauls: (Links omitted.)
In part, no doubt, because of these numbers: (Links omitted.)
source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/11/gavin-newsom-democrats-progressives-president-california/
In 2028, I would much prefer to have a choice between two candidates who were qualified to be president.
I quite like the Capri but it’s a bit long given that my go to for a decade was a Mini but I need more range than a mini.
I did nearly get a lease Smart Brabus in January but the lease deal had gone by the time I made my mind up
The other option is Renault but you don’t get the 30-40% discounts you get with an ex demonstrator Ford / VW / Cupra
If we wish to avoid a government bent on revenge socialism, we have to give younger people a better deal.
The 1941 invasion involved troops going over the border from Iraq, Pakistan and what is now Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Today, the US would probably want to team up with Pakistan and Turkey to have much chance of success.
The 1941 invasions involved maybe 70k invading troops against up to 200k Iranian troops. 70k is roughly ten times what the US is sending to the area, and they'd need a lot more than we did in 1941 given the Iranian armed forces are now around 610k (+ 350k reserves). In other words, the current reality is that a full-on invasion is not going to happen. Any "boots on the ground" will be in a very limited sense.
Not that it will come to that I expect.
I’m more concerned about fertiliser, Helium, Sulfur and other industrial products we need.
A quick glance tells me gas prices in the US are now 25% higher than a month ago (avg $3.65 v $2.90)
As I said, means test the triple lock as a compromise so only poor pensioners solely on state pension get it not rich pensioners with big private pensions too.
In any case even Corbyn backed keeping the triple lock, socialists want to hammer the rich, wealthy, high earners and big corporations with tax but not make poor pensioners poorer
So the cost to the retailer in Darlo should be about £1.53 (Assume ~Costco 2p per litre profit...)
We (the UK) imported almost no gas from Russia prior to the Ukraine invasion and subsequently didn't really have to replace those imports. Prior to the last few weeks Qatar accounted for 1% of our gas imports - about 0.7% of our consumption. The vast majority of our gas imports (over 90%) come from Norway and the US.
RIP.
This is the end of the gravvy train for a great many including pensioners
The days of overborrowing and overspending are simply over
https://x.com/CountBinface/status/2035007637360714217
Not that that’s a good thing for the region, more a result of restrictions in export capacity.
The Saudis will be trying to work out just how quickly they can contruct storage tanks.
Everybody is going to be poorer and that is across society
I am not even thinking of labour's internal battles -10 year gilts are closing in on 5.00 %
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmbmkgb-10y?countrycode=bx
Just take that on board
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IXwS2QxS70
Putin offers to cut off intel to Iran if the US cuts off Ukraine.
https://bsky.app/profile/peark.es/post/3mhitvmfvhk2g
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce84073mr06t