(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Slightly amazing poll from Scotland putting the party in second place on just 14%, (in this case Reform). Don't think I can remember a second-placed party in a poll being that low before.
“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.
Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz
Trump blinked first — out of a clear understanding that striking Iran’s energy infrastructure would trigger a direct and significant retaliation.
As for negotiations, messages were clearly exchanged, but there’s strong reason to doubt that Iran actually conceded. This regime is unlikely to reopen the Strait without meaningful concessions from the U.S.
From Tehran’s perspective, this is a notable achievement: they didn’t fold, didn’t back down, and may have forced Washington to recalibrate its objectives.
For Trump, the goal now appears to have shifted — no longer regime change, but reopening the Strait.
Bottom line is - the conflict isn’t over. It’s still unfolding, but a potential path to de-escalation has emerged. Still, one key question remains — if in five days Iran hasn’t reopened the Strait, it’s unlikely that threats alone will change that. Pressure without incentives rarely works.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Slightly amazing poll from Scotland putting the party in second place on just 14%, (in this case Reform). Don't think I can remember a second-placed party in a poll being that low before.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
40%, ie a minority. Which means the majority of the bottom quintile income households do have a car.
And those that do overwhelmingly do because they need it to get to work. It is essential for them.
And those in the bottom quintile driving a (typically more than a decade old) car to get to their low-paid work are paying a vastly higher proportion of income on fuel duty than the wealthier quintiles do. Indeed the wealthiest quintiles may not be spending a penny on it.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Trump can school Hodges in the politics though: this can easily be spun that Iran has been significantly degraded and that a benign Donald is now prepared to give peace a chance. That should be enough for most of the MAGA base. Onwards...
Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?
We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.
Either shit or get off the pot.
There was no point.
What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?
There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.
The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.
It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
Mileage has nothing to do with fuel duty as a percentage of income.
Fuel duty as a percentage of income is very regressive. Especially in this era of wealthy individuals buying hybrids/electric vehicles.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
It’s not to do with mileage, it’s to do with proportion of salary required to run a car that’s a requirement to work.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.
Well, it’s better that the imaginary Iranians Trump is talking to in his head want peace than war.
Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?
We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.
Either shit or get off the pot.
There was no point.
What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?
There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.
The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.
It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.
I don't persist in thinking it could be, I persist in thinking it should be.
Two very different things.
I have said all along I expect President TACO to feck this up.
It may be less than 10% support but I am quite content to be in that less than 10% and advocate for my beliefs.
On thread, I would not be backing Starmer being replaced before June simply because of the timetable. The gauntlet would need to be thrown down in the next month but clearly it won't be. The challenge will come in the wake of the May elections.
The timetable for the unsuccessful challenge to Corbyn in 2016 was as follows: Eagle and Smith announced they were standing against Corbyn on 11th and 13th July 2016 and proceeded to seek nominations from MPs. The result was announced on 24th September. So it took about 11 weeks to conduct the elections from start to finish. Assuming the contest against Starmer kicks off off after the May elections but before the end of June, you could be reasonably confident of the result being announced between July and September.
Of course, check the rules. I assume they are drawn up in terms of the day the replacement to Starmer is announced (permanently), not when he might resign or announce that he will be stepping down so as not to contest a contest which could happen far earlier. But I haven't checked.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?
We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.
Either shit or get off the pot.
There was no point.
What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?
There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.
The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.
It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.
Shortly after President Trump announced that the United States had held productive talks to end the war, the Israeli military said it had conducted a new wave of strikes against the Iranian government.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
I forgot to bookmark the post I saw yesterday, that basically said that the coverage of the Iran war is massively distorted by the fact that almost the entire American Establishment and media want to see the Americans lose because they hate Trump.
Edit: one from last week. https://x.com/k_aminthaabet/status/2033872949107728656 The hatred for Trump is so strong in mainstream U.S. media that war reporting is bring given a pro-Iran spin, with all U.S. success being muted almost entirely. It’s scandalous, actually.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?
We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.
Either shit or get off the pot.
There was no point.
What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?
There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.
The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.
It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.
I don't persist in thinking it could be, I persist in thinking it should be.
Two very different things.
I have said all along I expect President TACO to feck this up.
It may be less than 10% support but I am quite content to be in that less than 10% and advocate for my beliefs.
You have persisted in saying this action was a good idea. It isn't.
Whether or not Trump chickens out doesn't change that.
Just because we need to be mistrustful of the loony Trump, doesn’t mean that the Iranians automatically speak the truth. Quite the opposite. They are as evil as he is mad
It is perfectly possible they have made grovelling overtures to Trump, and that’s why he’s called off the attacks. But they would never admit this, naturally
So we just don’t know
It's another 48%-52% call (who is lying, Trump or Iran).
A rather strange thing happened to me yesterday. I was stopped on a quiet residential street by a middle-aged blonde woman who was crying. In a strong Russian accent, she begged me for the use of my phone, saying that somebody was about to die and she needed to message her priest. Being fairly good-natured, I let her use it, as it did not seem a flight risk, being a) female and b) rather stout. She tapped out a message in Russian (I speak the language a little and have the keyboard installed on my phone). I checked the number as she did so and it didn't look like one of those scam numbers where they charge you £50 for a text. She thanked me profusely and we went out separate ways.
About an hour later I got a reply my phone. Not out of noseyness (well, maybe a bit), but to check it wasn't some kind of scam of some kind, I translated the message she had sent and the reply she received. The original message was:
"Father, I'm furious, have mercy on me for Christ's sake. That's why this is happening. I'm dying and in despair. I can forgive you. Unblock the number please. I beg on my knees. [Her name]"
And the curt, rather dramatic reply:
"You have crossed the line beyond which there is no forgiveness".
I checked and the only sin for an Orthodox Christian for which there is no forgiveness is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Murdering thousands of Ukrainians is fine if you say sorry apparently. But I'm not sure if blasphemy is what he meant.
Anyway, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But it feels like the first chapter of a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story.
More a Robert Goddard, I'd say. John Major's fav author. You'd be the rootless male protagonist who decides to follow it up and gets embroiled in a mystery which has its roots in a different place and time. Despite some hairy moments you'd solve it and survive.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
Yes. It’s another symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump must always be lying therefore in this case the Iranians - the fecking Iranians! - MUST be telling the truth
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
I forgot to bookmark the post I saw yesterday, that basically said that the coverage of the Iran war is massively distorted by the fact that almost the entire American Establishment and media want to see the Americans lose because they hate Trump.
The enemies here on scale of global threat are in danger order
Israel
USA
Iran
Thats a terrible indictment on the democratically elected leaders of the first two.
It is beholden on citizens of these 2 countries to remove them
Until they do they are dangerous enemies and should be treated and sanctioned like Iran, Russia and North Korea.
Half-in, half-out, we're fighting them but don't want to hurt them too much is the worst of all worlds. What's the frigging point?
We suffer the consequences of the Strait being closed, without the advantage of getting regime change.
Either shit or get off the pot.
There was no point.
What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?
There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.
The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.
It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.
I don't persist in thinking it could be, I persist in thinking it should be.
Two very different things.
I have said all along I expect President TACO to feck this up.
It may be less than 10% support but I am quite content to be in that less than 10% and advocate for my beliefs.
You have persisted in saying this action was a good idea. It isn't.
Whether or not Trump chickens out doesn't change that.
Disagreed.
If we all agreed on everything, this site would be rather dull.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Looks like Starmer has played a blinder in persuading Trump to call a pause.
However, I'm not that hopeful. Trump will probably change his mind when he awakes from the best night's sleep anybody has ever had and realises that Starmer was just pretending to be an Iranian leader.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
I forgot to bookmark the post I saw yesterday, that basically said that the coverage of the Iran war is massively distorted by the fact that almost the entire American Establishment and media want to see the Americans lose because they hate Trump.
Most of what constitutes US media has for years been either slavishly supportive, or indulges in absurd sanewashing of Trump.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
Yes. It’s another symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump must always be lying therefore in this case the Iranians - the fecking Iranians! - MUST be telling the truth
Both the Iranians and Trump talk Shi’ite.
I think is a terrible outcome as I feared this will embolden the Iranian regime to crush the revolt at home.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
I forgot to bookmark the post I saw yesterday, that basically said that the coverage of the Iran war is massively distorted by the fact that almost the entire American Establishment and media want to see the Americans lose because they hate Trump.
The enemies here on scale of global threat are in danger order
Israel
USA
Iran
Thats a terrible indictment on the democratically elected leaders of the first two.
It is beholden on citizens of these 2 countries to remove them
Until they do they are dangerous enemies and should be treated and sanctioned like Iran, Russia and North Korea.
Not from where I’m watching, which is Dubai.
The threat is Iran, and has been Iran ever since 1979.
The current situation is less than optimal, but it’s a once in a generation chance for a regional reset by taking out the mullahs. If that means a few weeks of local disruption, then so be it.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
Yes. It’s another symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump must always be lying therefore in this case the Iranians - the fecking Iranians! - MUST be telling the truth
Both the Iranians and Trump talk Shi’ite.
I think is a terrible outcome as I feared this will embolden the Iranian regime to crush the revolt at home.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
It’s not to do with mileage, it’s to do with proportion of salary required to run a car that’s a requirement to work.
It’s a tax cut which reduces costs for the top quintile twice as much as it does the second quintile. It’s absolutely crap as something to help the kind of household you’re talking about - particularly if it’s funded by income tax/NICs.
(I say this with a top 5% income driving 17,000 miles a year - it would be brilliant news for me)
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
On thread, I would not be backing Starmer being replaced before June simply because of the timetable. The gauntlet would need to be thrown down in the next month but clearly it won't be. The challenge will come in the wake of the May elections.
The timetable for the unsuccessful challenge to Corbyn in 2016 was as follows: Eagle and Smith announced they were standing against Corbyn on 11th and 13th July 2016 and proceeded to seek nominations from MPs. The result was announced on 24th September. So it took about 11 weeks to conduct the elections from start to finish. Assuming the contest against Starmer kicks off off after the May elections but before the end of June, you could be reasonably confident of the result being announced between July and September.
Of course, check the rules. I assume they are drawn up in terms of the day the replacement to Starmer is announced (permanently), not when he might resign or announce that he will be stepping down so as not to contest a contest which could happen far earlier. But I haven't checked.
If Labour are third or worse in May a leadership contest will kick off, if the Tories are third or worse though it will be Kemi facing a VONC and SKS will survive another year
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
Yes. It’s another symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump must always be lying therefore in this case the Iranians - the fecking Iranians! - MUST be telling the truth
Both the Iranians and Trump talk Shi’ite.
I think is a terrible outcome as I feared this will embolden the Iranian regime to crush the revolt at home.
A lot more innocents are going to die.
Yes. It’s bloody grim for the Iranians
The line will be we’ve beaten the Great Satan and Israel so we can beat you.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
It’s not to do with mileage, it’s to do with proportion of salary required to run a car that’s a requirement to work.
It’s a tax cut which reduces costs for the top quintile twice as much as it does the second quintile. It’s absolutely crap as something to help the kind of household you’re talking about - particularly if it’s funded by income tax/NICs.
(I say this with a top 5% income driving 17,000 miles a year - it would be brilliant news for me)
You must have a very understanding boss, or work in the unproductive public sector, given you seem to spend a fair chunk of every day posting here as opposed to working
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
It’s not to do with mileage, it’s to do with proportion of salary required to run a car that’s a requirement to work.
It’s a tax cut which reduces costs for the top quintile twice as much as it does the second quintile. It’s absolutely crap as something to help the kind of household you’re talking about - particularly if it’s funded by income tax/NICs.
(I say this with a top 5% income driving 17,000 miles a year - it would be brilliant news for me)
You must have a very understanding boss, or work in the unproductive public sector, given you seem to spend a fair chunk of every day posting here as opposed to working
Automate. Delegate. I have exceptionally high productivity.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.
I'm not sure anyone is going to admit to talks having happened.
I'm sure nobody is talking directly to Trump.
I wonder if US Marines going into Kharg Island is now off the menu?
NY Times pointing out that the five days Trump now has to somehow get the Straits open by negotiation is the time it will take the marines who are on route to arrive and set up.
If you look at the number of troops used in the invasion of Iraq, or even the 1941 Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, the numbers of US Marines on their way now are minimal. It is hard to see what they can do that is strategically decisive and avoids significant casualties.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
It’s not to do with mileage, it’s to do with proportion of salary required to run a car that’s a requirement to work.
It’s a tax cut which reduces costs for the top quintile twice as much as it does the second quintile. It’s absolutely crap as something to help the kind of household you’re talking about - particularly if it’s funded by income tax/NICs.
(I say this with a top 5% income driving 17,000 miles a year - it would be brilliant news for me)
You must have a very understanding boss, or work in the unproductive public sector, given you seem to spend a fair chunk of every day posting here as opposed to working
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?
For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already
Yes, that's right.
But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.
So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.
However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.
Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.
Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.
Depends on just how severe the depression is.
I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.
Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.
It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.
Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.
By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.
But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user
Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.
Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.
There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.
You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.
Because they’re mostly not working.
Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…
They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.
I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.
In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive
Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.
Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.
Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.
If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.
But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.
EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.
Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.
Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.
It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.
Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.
That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.
It’s not to do with mileage, it’s to do with proportion of salary required to run a car that’s a requirement to work.
It’s a tax cut which reduces costs for the top quintile twice as much as it does the second quintile. It’s absolutely crap as something to help the kind of household you’re talking about - particularly if it’s funded by income tax/NICs.
(I say this with a top 5% income driving 17,000 miles a year - it would be brilliant news for me)
The top quintile provide considerably more than twice as much income tax/NICs than the second quintile do, so you've proven how regressive it is with your own data.
Progressive/regressive is as a proportion of income.
That's before considering the top quintile are most likely to own an EV and spend £0 on fuel duty.
So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?
I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.
I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.
But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.
The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.
I'm not sure anyone is going to admit to talks having happened.
I'm sure nobody is talking directly to Trump.
I wonder if US Marines going into Kharg Island is now off the menu?
NY Times pointing out that the five days Trump now has to somehow get the Straits open by negotiation is the time it will take the marines who are on route to arrive and set up.
If you look at the number of troops used in the invasion of Iraq, or even the 1941 Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, the numbers of US Marines on their way now are minimal. It is hard to see what they can do that is strategically decisive and avoids significant casualties.
It's this kind of woke nonsense that Hegseth is beating out of the US military.
It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Given the motor industry's systemic addiction to fraud that will just result in garages having a K-reg Micra parked out front that has every possible part and repair assigned to it.
If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.
Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.
The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Given the motor industry's systemic addiction to fraud that will just result in garages having a K-reg Micra parked out front that has every possible part and repair assigned to it.
If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.
Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.
The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.
Um not that I’m seeing in the market - the cheap BEV leases are still cheap and the others haven’t changed much.
Leasing.co.uk and leaseloco both have charts that make it easy to see short term market trends
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
Yes. It’s another symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump must always be lying therefore in this case the Iranians - the fecking Iranians! - MUST be telling the truth
Both the Iranians and Trump talk Shi’ite.
I think is a terrible outcome as I feared this will embolden the Iranian regime to crush the revolt at home.
A lot more innocents are going to die.
Can’t be right, Trump and Bibi are never done talking about the plight of the Iranian people and how their bombings are for their benefit (not the c.2000 they’ve killed incl.175 schoolgirls obvs). Shortest odds bet going, if there’s another crackdown on Iranian protesters, Trump will blame them for not taking the chance while he and Bibi were bombing the shit out of Tehran.
Every single coastal town in the UK should have a version of The Royal Whitstable Oyster Company. A breezy airy lovely old seaside gastropubby restaurant, where you can reliably get good oysters (and everything else seafood)
Britain has some of the very best seafood on the planet. It’s mad that it’s so hard to get, in Britain
It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Given the motor industry's systemic addiction to fraud that will just result in garages having a K-reg Micra parked out front that has every possible part and repair assigned to it.
If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.
Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.
The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.
Um not that I’m seeing in the market - the cheap BEV leases are still cheap and the others haven’t changed much.
Leasing.co.uk and leaseloco both have charts that make it easy to see short term market trends
I'm just working off the relentless fusillade of marketing emails I get off BMW and Porsche.
A rather strange thing happened to me yesterday. I was stopped on a quiet residential street by a middle-aged blonde woman who was crying. In a strong Russian accent, she begged me for the use of my phone, saying that somebody was about to die and she needed to message her priest. Being fairly good-natured, I let her use it, as it did not seem a flight risk, being a) female and b) rather stout. She tapped out a message in Russian (I speak the language a little and have the keyboard installed on my phone). I checked the number as she did so and it didn't look like one of those scam numbers where they charge you £50 for a text. She thanked me profusely and we went out separate ways.
About an hour later I got a reply my phone. Not out of noseyness (well, maybe a bit), but to check it wasn't some kind of scam of some kind, I translated the message she had sent and the reply she received. The original message was:
"Father, I'm furious, have mercy on me for Christ's sake. That's why this is happening. I'm dying and in despair. I can forgive you. Unblock the number please. I beg on my knees. [Her name]"
And the curt, rather dramatic reply:
"You have crossed the line beyond which there is no forgiveness".
I checked and the only sin for an Orthodox Christian for which there is no forgiveness is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Murdering thousands of Ukrainians is fine if you say sorry apparently. But I'm not sure if blasphemy is what he meant.
Anyway, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But it feels like the first chapter of a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
Yes. It’s another symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump must always be lying therefore in this case the Iranians - the fecking Iranians! - MUST be telling the truth
Both the Iranians and Trump talk Shi’ite.
I think is a terrible outcome as I feared this will embolden the Iranian regime to crush the revolt at home.
A lot more innocents are going to die.
Trouble is, there are no good options from here, or even mediocre ones.
Which is why smarter leaders than Trump and Bibi wouldn't have started this whole thing.
(If you want the Jesus line about a king weighing up forces before attacking, I'm sure you can find it yourself.)
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
I forgot to bookmark the post I saw yesterday, that basically said that the coverage of the Iran war is massively distorted by the fact that almost the entire American Establishment and media want to see the Americans lose because they hate Trump.
Edit: one from last week. https://x.com/k_aminthaabet/status/2033872949107728656 The hatred for Trump is so strong in mainstream U.S. media that war reporting is bring given a pro-Iran spin, with all U.S. success being muted almost entirely. It’s scandalous, actually.
You can’t justify how Trump started this war, you can’t justify how Trump is conducting this war, so you have to fall back on blaming the media and some new flavour of claiming Trump Derangement Syndrome.
A rather strange thing happened to me yesterday. I was stopped on a quiet residential street by a middle-aged blonde woman who was crying. In a strong Russian accent, she begged me for the use of my phone, saying that somebody was about to die and she needed to message her priest. Being fairly good-natured, I let her use it, as it did not seem a flight risk, being a) female and b) rather stout. She tapped out a message in Russian (I speak the language a little and have the keyboard installed on my phone). I checked the number as she did so and it didn't look like one of those scam numbers where they charge you £50 for a text. She thanked me profusely and we went out separate ways.
About an hour later I got a reply my phone. Not out of noseyness (well, maybe a bit), but to check it wasn't some kind of scam of some kind, I translated the message she had sent and the reply she received. The original message was:
"Father, I'm furious, have mercy on me for Christ's sake. That's why this is happening. I'm dying and in despair. I can forgive you. Unblock the number please. I beg on my knees. [Her name]"
And the curt, rather dramatic reply:
"You have crossed the line beyond which there is no forgiveness".
I checked and the only sin for an Orthodox Christian for which there is no forgiveness is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Murdering thousands of Ukrainians is fine if you say sorry apparently. But I'm not sure if blasphemy is what he meant.
Anyway, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But it feels like the first chapter of a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story.
What an extraordinary story; thanks for sharing.
The most remarkable aspect is the chance of her randomly finding somebody with a Cyrillic keyboard on their phone.
Slightly amazing poll from Scotland putting the party in second place on just 14%, (in this case Reform). Don't think I can remember a second-placed party in a poll being that low before.
Just because we need to be mistrustful of the loony Trump, doesn’t mean that the Iranians automatically speak the truth. Quite the opposite. They are as evil as he is mad
It is perfectly possible they have made grovelling overtures to Trump, and that’s why he’s called off the attacks. But they would never admit this, naturally
It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Given the motor industry's systemic addiction to fraud that will just result in garages having a K-reg Micra parked out front that has every possible part and repair assigned to it.
If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.
Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.
The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.
Low earners can use public transport so there are fewer cars on the road to bother the well off.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.
Like, duh. Both are utterly vile but little doubt as to which poses the bigger long term threat to global peace and security, IMHO.
Fascinatingly, I genuinely don’t know which of the two belligerents you mean
For me, the Iranians are obviously the greater threat (and the greater evil). If they get very close to nukes, without regime change, we will have nuclear war, for sure. Israel will attempt a First Strike
I can report that Whitstable is rather charming, in the mild spring sunshine. In a gritty, authentic English coastal way
We holidayed there in 2022. Had a bad oyster.
Well, I’ve just ordered nine rocks and natives at the Royal Whitstable Oyster Company, so I’m hoping you’re wrong!
It’s a really pleasant gaff, like a really good oyster bar in Brittany mixed with a Cornish gastropub. But in Kent
I might come to Whitstable more often
I'm from Whitstable, well the nearby village of Blean anyway, and am typing this from the family beach hut just past the Hotel Continental over on Tankerton Slopes. I'd give you directions and offer you a beer but I guess I'm in at least the bottom 3 of PBers you'd want to meet in person.
In case of interest, you're next door to where I lost my virginity, back of the Whitstable umbrella, in May 1990. Good times
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
I can report that Whitstable is rather charming, in the mild spring sunshine. In a gritty, authentic English coastal way
We holidayed there in 2022. Had a bad oyster.
Well, I’ve just ordered nine rocks and natives at the Royal Whitstable Oyster Company, so I’m hoping you’re wrong!
It’s a really pleasant gaff, like a really good oyster bar in Brittany mixed with a Cornish gastropub. But in Kent
I might come to Whitstable more often
I'm from Whitstable, well the nearby village of Blean anyway, and am typing this from the family beach hut just past the Hotel Continental over on Tankerton Slopes. I'd give you directions and offer you a beer but I guess I'm in at least the bottom 3 of PBers you'd want to meet in person.
In case of interest, you're next door to where I lost my virginity, back of the Whitstable umbrella, in May 1990. Good times
Should we petition for a blue plaque to be erected there to commemorate the happy event?
It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Given the motor industry's systemic addiction to fraud that will just result in garages having a K-reg Micra parked out front that has every possible part and repair assigned to it.
If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.
Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.
The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.
Um not that I’m seeing in the market - the cheap BEV leases are still cheap and the others haven’t changed much.
Leasing.co.uk and leaseloco both have charts that make it easy to see short term market trends
That leasing companies are now trying to pick up 2nd hand ex-lease BEVs, is a great example of how much the market is failing.
There’s precisely no private market buying second-hand EVs, so the leasing companies are buying as many as they can to protect their primary business of new EVs.
Every single coastal town in the UK should have a version of The Royal Whitstable Oyster Company. A breezy airy lovely old seaside gastropubby restaurant, where you can reliably get good oysters (and everything else seafood)
Britain has some of the very best seafood on the planet. It’s mad that it’s so hard to get, in Britain
I remember some years ago having absolutely delicious crustaceans fresh off the BBQ in Portugal and, I noticed on the boxes, fresh off the boat from Oban in Scotland where they had been harvested. If you found them for sale in this country at all they were some rare delicacy at multiple times the price. It was more than a bit frustrating. Its got a bit better, there are more seafood restaurants than there were but we could still do a lot better.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 39m Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.
Iran's foreign ministry denies Tehran-Washington talks published at 13:08 Iran's foreign ministry has issued a statement, saying: "We deny what US President Donald Trump said regarding negotiations taking place between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Quoted by CBS News, the BBC's US partner, the foreign ministry adds: "The Islamic Republic of Iran adheres to its position rejecting any type of negotiations before achieving Iran's goals from the war.”
Don't bluff. If you say you're going to do something, follow through with it. America can and should follow through, but it is led by a fool.
It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Given the motor industry's systemic addiction to fraud that will just result in garages having a K-reg Micra parked out front that has every possible part and repair assigned to it.
If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.
Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.
The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.
Low earners can use public transport so there are fewer cars on the road to bother the well off.
Which is why Sadiq Khan’s armoured 5-ton V8 Range Rover is seemingly exempt from the rules everyone else in London needs to live by.
Comments
Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1725054/thread
Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش
@citrinowicz
Trump blinked first — out of a clear understanding that striking Iran’s energy infrastructure would trigger a direct and significant retaliation.
As for negotiations, messages were clearly exchanged, but there’s strong reason to doubt that Iran actually conceded. This regime is unlikely to reopen the Strait without meaningful concessions from the U.S.
From Tehran’s perspective, this is a notable achievement: they didn’t fold, didn’t back down, and may have forced Washington to recalibrate its objectives.
For Trump, the goal now appears to have shifted — no longer regime change, but reopening the Strait.
Bottom line is - the conflict isn’t over. It’s still unfolding, but a potential path to de-escalation has emerged. Still, one key question remains — if in five days Iran hasn’t reopened the Strait, it’s unlikely that threats alone will change that. Pressure without incentives rarely works.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2036041220976218144
Law of diminishing returns.
But if that was the final tally, it would be a superb result for SNP
And those that do overwhelmingly do because they need it to get to work. It is essential for them.
And those in the bottom quintile driving a (typically more than a decade old) car to get to their low-paid work are paying a vastly higher proportion of income on fuel duty than the wealthier quintiles do. Indeed the wealthiest quintiles may not be spending a penny on it.
The tax is extremely regressive.
That certainly is impossible.
What was it about this unplanned, unannounced, unconsulted operation, for which they have still to set out a rationale, that made you think it would be a success ?
There is less than 10% domestic support for "boots on the ground", and yet you persist in thinking this could be neocon regime change redux.
The risks to the world are far higher than Iraq; there is no coalition; Iran is several times the size and utterly impractical to occupy.
It was always a fantasy. For everyone except Israel, who have achieved much of their war aims.
Fuel duty as a percentage of income is very regressive. Especially in this era of wealthy individuals buying hybrids/electric vehicles.
Two very different things.
I have said all along I expect President TACO to feck this up.
It may be less than 10% support but I am quite content to be in that less than 10% and advocate for my beliefs.
The timetable for the unsuccessful challenge to Corbyn in 2016 was as follows: Eagle and Smith announced they were standing against Corbyn on 11th and 13th July 2016 and proceeded to seek nominations from MPs. The result was announced on 24th September. So it took about 11 weeks to conduct the elections from start to finish. Assuming the contest against Starmer kicks off off after the May elections but before the end of June, you could be reasonably confident of the result being announced between July and September.
Of course, check the rules. I assume they are drawn up in terms of the day the replacement to Starmer is announced (permanently), not when he might resign or announce that he will be stepping down so as not to contest a contest which could happen far earlier. But I haven't checked.
They have killed everyone they were talking to.
Shortly after President Trump announced that the United States had held productive talks to end the war, the Israeli military said it had conducted a new wave of strikes against the Iranian government.
NY Times live blog
To return to Barty's metaphor, if the switch existed to simply dispose of the Iranian regime, most people would happily flip it.
But it doesn't exist.
If change comes, it will come from within.
Edit: one from last week.
https://x.com/k_aminthaabet/status/2033872949107728656
The hatred for Trump is so strong in mainstream U.S. media that war reporting is bring given a pro-Iran spin, with all U.S. success being muted almost entirely. It’s scandalous, actually.
It isn't.
Whether or not Trump chickens out doesn't change that.
Israel
USA
Iran
Thats a terrible indictment on the democratically elected leaders of the first two.
It is beholden on citizens of these 2 countries to remove them
Until they do they are dangerous enemies and should be treated and sanctioned like Iran, Russia and North Korea.
If we all agreed on everything, this site would be rather dull.
The conceptual plane of action has only two dimensions.
However, I'm not that hopeful. Trump will probably change his mind when he awakes from the best night's sleep anybody has ever had and realises that Starmer was just pretending to be an Iranian leader.
I think is a terrible outcome as I feared this will embolden the Iranian regime to crush the revolt at home.
A lot more innocents are going to die.
And computer chess is not 3 dimensional.
But an enjoyable bit of pedantry nonetheless. Nicely done.
The threat is Iran, and has been Iran ever since 1979.
The current situation is less than optimal, but it’s a once in a generation chance for a regional reset by taking out the mullahs. If that means a few weeks of local disruption, then so be it.
(I say this with a top 5% income driving 17,000 miles a year - it would be brilliant news for me)
We all know that Parliament’s postcode is SW1A 1AA, the White House switchboard number should be +1 100 123 4567
Also good and in a similar vein, but less well-known, is “BASEketball”. (Well, I liked it, but it did get nominated for two Razzies.)
It’s a really pleasant gaff, like a really good oyster bar in Brittany mixed with a Cornish gastropub. But in Kent
I might come to Whitstable more often
Progressive/regressive is as a proportion of income.
That's before considering the top quintile are most likely to own an EV and spend £0 on fuel duty.
If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.
Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.
The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.
He’s an uncouth, rude, narcissistic bully. It’s hard to like those sorts of people.
And the USA seems very united in opposition to the war. It’s managed to unify right and left.
Leasing.co.uk and leaseloco both have charts that make it easy to see short term market trends
Shortest odds bet going, if there’s another crackdown on Iranian protesters, Trump will blame them for not taking the chance while he and Bibi were bombing the shit out of Tehran.
Britain has some of the very best seafood on the planet. It’s mad that it’s so hard to get, in Britain
Which is why smarter leaders than Trump and Bibi wouldn't have started this whole thing.
(If you want the Jesus line about a king weighing up forces before attacking, I'm sure you can find it yourself.)
https://x.com/airmainengineer/status/2036066312187715902
New York looks fun today, thousands of pax are going to end up somewhere else.
Things that make you go "Hmmmm...."
Trump blinked
For me, the Iranians are obviously the greater threat (and the greater evil). If they get very close to nukes, without regime change, we will have nuclear war, for sure. Israel will attempt a First Strike
But given your politics perhaps you mean the USA
I'm from Whitstable, well the nearby village of Blean anyway, and am typing this from the family beach hut just past the Hotel Continental over on Tankerton Slopes. I'd give you directions and offer you a beer but I guess I'm in at least the bottom 3 of PBers you'd want to meet in person.
In case of interest, you're next door to where I lost my virginity, back of the Whitstable umbrella, in May 1990. Good times
There’s precisely no private market buying second-hand EVs, so the leasing companies are buying as many as they can to protect their primary business of new EVs.
I'd be happy to go along with that if it is him being charged with child sex abuse as the fallout from Epstein. Otherwise - not so much.
Iran's foreign ministry denies Tehran-Washington talks
published at 13:08
Iran's foreign ministry has issued a statement, saying: "We deny what US President Donald Trump said regarding negotiations taking place between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Quoted by CBS News, the BBC's US partner, the foreign ministry adds: "The Islamic Republic of Iran adheres to its position rejecting any type of negotiations before achieving Iran's goals from the war.”
Don't bluff. If you say you're going to do something, follow through with it. America can and should follow through, but it is led by a fool.