To smokescreen the Epstein files and it has worked like a Swiss watch.
I don't understand this. The whole point of a historic allegation is that it's not current. It could re-emerge at any time.
So long as the war continues, the Epstein files are off the news and some of the stuff that has dropped in the last fortnight has been particularly damning for Trump.
Keir Starmer accepts the UK is not on a war footing at the moment
JENKIN: Why is (the UK) not on a war footing now? STARMER: Because the strategic review commits us to a war footing, and we now need to put the funding in place in order to get there.
Mediators are trying to convene talks in Islamabad later this week, with Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliamentary speaker, leading Iran’s delegation and Witkoff, Kushner, and possibly JD Vance representing the US, Axios reports.
Keir Starmer accepts the UK is not on a war footing at the moment
JENKIN: Why is (the UK) not on a war footing now? STARMER: Because the strategic review commits us to a war footing, and we now need to put the funding in place in order to get there.
Jenkins accuses Starmer if being Party Political after he and Deshi show utter contempt for common sense in complete denial of 14 years of gross Tory cuts and underfunding in defence.
They seriously do need sectioning under the mental health act if they are suggesting we should have declared war on Iran and joined illegal action with the paucity of operational equipment and man power the Tories left behind.
Looking at YouGovs latest leadership figures from this morning, Farage still has more 'strong support' gross than Badenoch but their gross 'all support' are now identical and she has fewer negatives. If this persists then the VI should start narrowing further between Con and Ref unless Con brand is a significant drag and/or Reform brand a significsnt boost on party polling.
To smokescreen the Epstein files and it has worked like a Swiss watch.
I don't understand this. The whole point of a historic allegation is that it's not current. It could re-emerge at any time.
So long as the war continues, the Epstein files are off the news and some of the stuff that has dropped in the last fortnight has been particularly damning for Trump.
You all misunderstand Trump. He’s merely trying to sort out the mess left by Barak Biden.
It will give the bats time to fly out of the tunnels.
You don’t need to make it up - it’s a set of know nothing idiots trying to save money.
Slower trains won’t save money when we need 4 more trains to create a regular timetable but no-one involved in the decision will have ever thought about that type of slightly secondary issue.
Iran promises not to build the bomb. The US and Israel promise not to try and overthrow the Iranian government. Iran opens the Straits of Hormuz.
Crisis over.
(Fingers crossed.)
Plausible given: - Iran in no place to build the bomb while being bombarded daily - The US and Israel have plainly failed to overthrow the Iranian government, despite their efforts. And they don't have the appetite for a land war that would be needed to make it happen. - Iran knows the Strait is a bargaining chip that has worked well and do so again in the future if the US or Israel renege.
My concern is one side holds out for too much. Such as no Uranium at all or full sanction relief. Or the IRGC just refuse to stop firing missiles.
But the potential for the deal is there. In game theory, the status quo (or escalation) results in a loss for both parties. De-escalation gets no one their optimal result but better than they are right now.
It's right to say that building it for more than 300kmh was a ridiculous decision but I doubt changing the specification now would save that much money.
To smokescreen the Epstein files and it has worked like a Swiss watch.
I don't understand this. The whole point of a historic allegation is that it's not current. It could re-emerge at any time.
So long as the war continues, the Epstein files are off the news and some of the stuff that has dropped in the last fortnight has been particularly damning for Trump.
You all misunderstand Trump. He’s merely trying to sort out the mess left by Barak Biden.
He is currently not very impressed with "dumb" "President Gavin Newscum". Maybe Newsom dropped this particularly b******.
To smokescreen the Epstein files and it has worked like a Swiss watch.
I don't understand this. The whole point of a historic allegation is that it's not current. It could re-emerge at any time.
So long as the war continues, the Epstein files are off the news and some of the stuff that has dropped in the last fortnight has been particularly damning for Trump.
You all misunderstand Trump. He’s merely trying to sort out the mess left by Barak Biden.
Iran promises not to build the bomb. The US and Israel promise not to try and overthrow the Iranian government. Iran opens the Straits of Hormuz.
Crisis over.
(Fingers crossed.)
Yes, but the first protects against the second happening and vice versa. So I think the subtext is that an agreement will be in place for just long enough for Iran to rebuild and improve on its weapons arsenal while Israel in particular will be keen to get back to bombing Iran very quickly to forestall that.
To smokescreen the Epstein files and it has worked like a Swiss watch.
I don't understand this. The whole point of a historic allegation is that it's not current. It could re-emerge at any time.
So long as the war continues, the Epstein files are off the news and some of the stuff that has dropped in the last fortnight has been particularly damning for Trump.
You all misunderstand Trump. He’s merely trying to sort out the mess left by Barak Biden.
OT - Times sets a new record for use of the word 'may' in a heading. Another benefit of just making your stories up I suppose...
In other media watch snippets - The Telegraph has managed make a story out of John Terry putting some approving emojis under a Rupert Lowe tweet. That's it, the whole story.
Afternoon all. Batshit crazy times Wonder what Reeves will wheel out tomorrow and if it will have the same impact as the lasy ecomonic support package
During COVID, Boris gave everyone free money. That sounds more like the sort of progress we want to see.
If Starmer wants to be more popular, free money is the answer. It worked for Boris.
Pensioners, benefits claimants and public sector workers have already enjoyed their generosity
I'm struggling to think what free money I've received from my public sector employer.
Some (e.g. medics) have had huge pay rises. Others, he might be referring to the generosity of pensions in the public sector.
Well I've never had a huge pay rise and I suspect my pension is a lot less ample than many on this site. However that is beside the point because none of that is free money as it's still a wage for services rendered. You might think the wage is too generous but it's hardly free money.
To smokescreen the Epstein files and it has worked like a Swiss watch.
I don't understand this. The whole point of a historic allegation is that it's not current. It could re-emerge at any time.
So long as the war continues, the Epstein files are off the news and some of the stuff that has dropped in the last fortnight has been particularly damning for Trump.
You all misunderstand Trump. He’s merely trying to sort out the mess left by Barak Biden.
Barrack Hussain O'Biden please.
'Sleepy Joe has shit in my pants again!'
Trump probably believes Joe Biden stinks when he is in Trump's orbit. Although the uncanny bit is everyone else smells of wet turd in Trump's orbit too. Funny that.
SNP - 39% Ref - 14% Lab - 12% Grn - 11% LD - 10% Con - 9%
Regional
SNP - 31% Grn - 17% Ref - 15% Lab - 12% Con - 10% LD - 9% Other - 1%
theres no way Greens are getting 11% on the constituency vote - they've only declared they are standing in approx 5 seats so far
Aren't we allowed to slag off non-BPC Ashcroft polls because they are often inaccurate based on often absurd application of data from other polls?
The Good Lord wasn't wildly different from all other pollsters with his final poll before the 2024 general election. Lab and Ref were overstated, Con understated, which was the case with most of them.
Afternoon all. Batshit crazy times Wonder what Reeves will wheel out tomorrow and if it will have the same impact as the lasy ecomonic support package
During COVID, Boris gave everyone free money. That sounds more like the sort of progress we want to see.
If Starmer wants to be more popular, free money is the answer. It worked for Boris.
Pensioners, benefits claimants and public sector workers have already enjoyed their generosity
I'm struggling to think what free money I've received from my public sector employer.
Some (e.g. medics) have had huge pay rises. Others, he might be referring to the generosity of pensions in the public sector.
Contributory pensions, all mainly now average salary since a few years ago and as per their employment Ts and Cs?
Disclaimer, never been public sector and barring 4 years as an employee, entirely responsible for my pension, health, life and employment insurances.
Just get pissed off with the "beggar thy neighbour" attacks on public sector employees, how would the attackers feel if their employer took back their contributions to employees' pensions? A la Maxwell and others.
“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”
It's right to say that building it for more than 300kmh was a ridiculous decision but I doubt changing the specification now would save that much money.
Well it will save a tiny bit of track maintenance costs but supposedly it adds £150-200m as 3 extra trains will be required..
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.
I think it’s…
First year £20 then £640 per year for five years before the expensive car supplement ends and VED drops to £195 per annum.
Assuming the better off spend over £50k on an EV. I’ve been looking to dump the diesel. EVs ain’t the deal you were expecting.
Comments
Keir Starmer accepts the UK is not on a war footing at the moment
JENKIN: Why is (the UK) not on a war footing now?
STARMER: Because the strategic review commits us to a war footing, and we now need to put the funding in place in order to get there.
Mediators are trying to convene talks in Islamabad later this week, with Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliamentary speaker, leading Iran’s delegation and Witkoff, Kushner, and possibly JD Vance representing the US, Axios reports.
Batshit crazy times
Wonder what Reeves will wheel out tomorrow and if it will have the same impact as the lasy ecomonic support package
I don't know the history but I suspect Galtieri didn't justify the operation against the Falklands as a distraction from his internal woes.
‘ ISRAELI OFFICIALS BELIEVE THE US AND IRAN COULD HOLD TALKS IN ISLAMABAD AS SOON AS THIS WEEK - REUTERS SOURCES’
https://x.com/wallstengine/status/2036101427861594225?s=61
If Starmer wants to be more popular, free money is the answer. It worked for Boris.
They seriously do need sectioning under the mental health act if they are suggesting we should have declared war on Iran and joined illegal action with the paucity of operational equipment and man power the Tories left behind.
HS2 the superfast. Railway is likely to run at reduced speed to save money
Billions wasted.
HS2 trains could run slower than planned to save money - BBC News https://share.google/JEjub8jHZo6jL2h3I
The US and Israel promise not to try and overthrow the Iranian government.
Iran opens the Straits of Hormuz.
Crisis over.
(Fingers crossed.)
Slower trains won’t save money when we need 4 more trains to create a regular timetable but no-one involved in the decision will have ever thought about that type of slightly secondary issue.
- Iran in no place to build the bomb while being bombarded daily
- The US and Israel have plainly failed to overthrow the Iranian government, despite their efforts. And they don't have the appetite for a land war that would be needed to make it happen.
- Iran knows the Strait is a bargaining chip that has worked well and do so again in the future if the US or Israel renege.
My concern is one side holds out for too much. Such as no Uranium at all or full sanction relief. Or the IRGC just refuse to stop firing missiles.
But the potential for the deal is there. In game theory, the status quo (or escalation) results in a loss for both parties. De-escalation gets no one their optimal result but better than they are right now.
(I know it's a referendum on legal reforms but Meloni did tie herself to its success)
Spencer Hakimian
@SpencerHakimian
🚨BREAKING: ITALIAN EXIT POLL SHOWS MELONI LOSS
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/2036083622638145566?s=20
Exit polls suggest Meloni narrowly lost contentious referendum — snap analysis
Angela Giuffrida in Rome
Exit polls on Monday appeared to suggest Italy’s prime minister has narrowly lost a contentious referendum on judicial reform."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/23/local-eu-elections-slovenia-italy-france-latest-updates-news
Hmmm.
Need some heft behind it if they do.
A ) The US and Israel will bomb the shit out of Iran again.
B ) Meanwhile, the GCC spends an insane amount on missile defence. From Ukraine.
C ) Oh, and America and Pakistan will give the Saudis 10 nukes. Pick your 10 Iranian cities to wave goodbye.
D ) And for good measure, the US will mine the Straits of Hormuz. They won't become live until codes are entered. Or somebody tries to move them.
Assume the Iranians will try to cheat - and build that into the peace deal.
(And at some point, very soon, Putin has to pay a very high price for siding with Iran at the deadly risk to American servicemen and women.)
@_DIGB
3h
Iran down the pub on Friday after Trump backed down
https://x.com/_DIGB/status/2036051464645157181?s=20
Can things get any crazier? With Trump at the helm. Yes,. Of course they can! 😂🤣
NEW THREAD
Disclaimer, never been public sector and barring 4 years as an employee, entirely responsible for my pension, health, life and employment insurances.
Just get pissed off with the "beggar thy neighbour" attacks on public sector employees, how would the attackers feel if their employer took back their contributions to employees' pensions?
A la Maxwell and others.
First year £20 then £640 per year for five years before the expensive car supplement ends and VED drops to £195 per annum.
Assuming the better off spend over £50k on an EV.
I’ve been looking to dump the diesel.
EVs ain’t the deal you were expecting.