Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
There is nothing wrong with net zero.
There is something wrong with it as a policy target because it creates self-defeating incentives, like most targets.
You don’t believe man-made climate change is real though. Just say so.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
This government is clearly superior to the Tory governments we have had since 2010 except for Cameron.
Clearly superior to Johnson and Truss. After that it gets debatable. I'd say not superior to Cameron pre-EU mishap, or Major before the bastards got to him. Definitely not superior to Blair pre-Iraq, or Maggie pre-Poll Tax.
I agree with Major too - his main challenge as PM was that the party was out of ideas and half his backbenchers preferred fighting their own government and eventually they ran out of steam, but the principals mostly conducted themselves well personally and their roles effectively. Oh for Heseltine, Clarke and Hurd today. And I opposed them strenuously at the time.
Not so sure about Thatcher, she seemed a bit unhinged by the time I could vote (87), maybe she was better at first (I don't remember well enough that far back) but was very divisive overall and we're still living with the downsides of many of the policies she brought in.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Some users love to attack our Labour ramper almost every post but at least they’re open in what they think.
What interests me is the question "Is this what he REALLY thinks?" as so much of what it posted is risible. There is a difference between posting your opinions where that opinion may be different to others and posting things that are patently not true. Our Labour ramper strays too far into the absurd to be taken seriously. He may feel Kemi is awful, but no, Starmer doesn't win every QT 6-0, leaving to standing ovations and the crowd baying for more. Critique is better if genuine.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Some users love to attack our Labour ramper almost every post but at least they’re open in what they think.
What interests me is the question "Is this what he REALLY thinks?" as so much of what it posted is risible. There is a difference between posting your opinions where that opinion may be different to others and posting things that are patently not true. Our Labour ramper strays too far into the absurd to be taken seriously. He may feel Kemi is awful, but no, Starmer doesn't win every QT 6-0, leaving to standing ovations and the crowd baying for more. Critique is better if genuine.
How does Trump manage to make every disaster even more disastrous. A genuinely impressive skill.
He's extremely stupid. He's ignorant and utterly incurious. He thinks he knows everything already. He's extraordinarily dishonest. He's totally immoral. He surrounds himself with sycophants. He's only interested in personal gain, and almost physically incapable of considering what other actors, be they US citizens or foreign enemies, might need or want.
Who would have thought more people believe Iran's version of events rather than Trump's
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Err I am a conservative and support Kemi
Not sure that has been banned yet despite @Brixian59 witterings
@HYUFD is a defacto Farage supporter and is some distance from me
Trump: "The Iranian negotiators are very different and 'strange.' They are 'begging' us to make a deal, which they should be doing since they have been militarily obliterated, with zero chance of a comeback, and yet they publicly state that they are only 'looking at our proposal.' WRONG!!! They better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty! President DJT"
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
Does it cover the cost of "the Conservative plan to axe the fuel tax"?*
NS drilling provided £5B tax revenue in 23/24 (commons library) and fuel duty raises well over £20B per year (OBR forecasts - don't laugh! - but also recent years results)
*They don't mean this, I think, but it's what the tanker says
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
Does it cover the cost of "the Conservative plan to axe the fuel tax"?*
NS drilling provided £5B tax revenue in 23/24 (commons library) and fuel duty raises well over £20B per year (OBR forecasts - don't laugh! - but also recent years results)
*They don't mean this, I think, but it's what the tanker says
It is the image and message that speaks to the subject
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
You would only get results like that if Reform win by absolutely miles in London and hit high 30s NEV nationally
It leaves Labour with about 250 wards out of 2200 and the Tories 120 of 1130 or so
He must have been drunk
Agreed. Reform nearer to 1,500 is my estimate - maybe not even that. They are falling at a rate where they loose significant numbers of possible gains with every poll. Still a way to go until early May.
Trump: "The Iranian negotiators are very different and 'strange.' They are 'begging' us to make a deal, which they should be doing since they have been militarily obliterated, with zero chance of a comeback, and yet they publicly state that they are only 'looking at our proposal.' WRONG!!! They better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty! President DJT"
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Err I am a conservative and support Kemi
Not sure that has been banned yet despite @Brixian59 witterings
@HYUFD is a defacto Farage supporter and is some distance from me
Come now, HYUFD is the one true Conservative!
(It is unfair to call him Faragist - he'd hardly diagnose Cleverly as the cure if so)
On party allegiance, I'm loosely Lib Dem (but have also been both Lab- and Con-curious). I'm no fan of Davey though.
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
Steve Fisher has been pretty good with his forecasts in previous elections hasn't he?
I dont see where he gets these figures from. It would be a much much more dominating performance than 2025 with a much much worse Lab and Tory one with half of seats up in London which is not particularly strong territory for Reform. It goes against polling, by elections and logic
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
I'm an interested person in the heating oil debate. As I've said, despite living (on the edge) in a small town, we are on oil. Gas didn't make it up our cul de sac. Two years ago we did a big extension and installed a new oil boiler. We did look at air-source/oil combinations but it wasn't that attractive at the time (really expensive up-front costs). The new part of our house is very well insulated, and we fitted new double glazing in the existing house as well as the new parts. We also had new insulation added to the upper story of the old part, but sadly the original house was built in the mid 70's and is poorly insulated for the main. Upstairs the wall were single skin with wood cladding. They now have some extra insulation between the walls and the new cladding. The loft space is well insulated.
So yes, we opted for a new, efficient oil boiler. We will use around 1200 litres of oil a year. Sorry. I was wary of switching because our old house is not well insulated. I suspect that when we do install the next heating system it will be air or ground source and will be combined with solar and battery. But it wasn't right for us yet. We have though done a lot to make our house better.
So I don't quite get why you are so down on rural users who are denied access to the gas network.
You are guilty of not living in an urban flat and cycling everywhere.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
So not having a car is actually sensible.
Strangely, not everyone has this.
Your inability to appreciate incentives in mind boggling. We’re going to make this mistake over and over again because government is just the same.
I’m entirely aware of the enormous costs associated with living in rural areas, whether that’s heating oil or fuel. That’s the costly environment i grew up in and it’s perverse to describe someone from the north of Scotland otherwise. What I disagree with is providing support only to those who have not invested in alternatives, because it rewards the kind of behaviour that in the long term deeply damages rural communities and the public finances.
Another example: I think the upcoming per mileage charge for EVs is a disgrace because it incentivises short urban journeys over long rural ones. It’s going to kill the rural economy far more than fuel duty dies, because at least long journeys tend to be more fuel efficient, all the while further contesting our cities. Per journey would be far better.
Incentives are nice. But you have to remember their limits.
The massive price increases in doing anything make oil fuel replacement a big capital cost. And buying an EV to replace the battered old hatch back isn’t cheap either.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Point 1: are the Conservatives really still doing slogans on the sides of vehicles? How many 350 millions to the NHS buses is equal to one tanker with "Fuel Brittania" on the side? Point 2: I was struck by how much she reminded me of Nicola Murray in The Thick Of It.
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
You would only get results like that if Reform win by absolutely miles in London and hit high 30s NEV nationally
It leaves Labour with about 250 wards out of 2200 and the Tories 120 of 1130 or so
He must have been drunk
The thing is, with the polls we're seeing at the moment (REF leading but down in six months ago, GREEN in second place, CON and LAB fighting it out for third place and LIB making up the numbers) I think all forecast models and predictions break down, especially in a FPTP election.
Obviously the 2026 local will be terrible for Lab and Con but who know how bad it gets and how good it is for REF/GRN/PLD/SNP...
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
I'm an interested person in the heating oil debate. As I've said, despite living (on the edge) in a small town, we are on oil. Gas didn't make it up our cul de sac. Two years ago we did a big extension and installed a new oil boiler. We did look at air-source/oil combinations but it wasn't that attractive at the time (really expensive up-front costs). The new part of our house is very well insulated, and we fitted new double glazing in the existing house as well as the new parts. We also had new insulation added to the upper story of the old part, but sadly the original house was built in the mid 70's and is poorly insulated for the main. Upstairs the wall were single skin with wood cladding. They now have some extra insulation between the walls and the new cladding. The loft space is well insulated.
So yes, we opted for a new, efficient oil boiler. We will use around 1200 litres of oil a year. Sorry. I was wary of switching because our old house is not well insulated. I suspect that when we do install the next heating system it will be air or ground source and will be combined with solar and battery. But it wasn't right for us yet. We have though done a lot to make our house better.
So I don't quite get why you are so down on rural users who are denied access to the gas network.
You are guilty of not living in an urban flat and cycling everywhere.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
So not having a car is actually sensible.
Strangely, not everyone has this.
Your inability to appreciate incentives in mind boggling. We’re going to make this mistake over and over again because government is just the same.
I’m entirely aware of the enormous costs associated with living in rural areas, whether that’s heating oil or fuel. That’s the costly environment i grew up in and it’s perverse to describe someone from the north of Scotland otherwise. What I disagree with is providing support only to those who have not invested in alternatives, because it rewards the kind of behaviour that in the long term deeply damages rural communities and the public finances.
Another example: I think the upcoming per mileage charge for EVs is a disgrace because it incentivises short urban journeys over long rural ones. It’s going to kill the rural economy far more than fuel duty dies, because at least long journeys tend to be more fuel efficient, all the while further contesting our cities. Per journey would be far better.
Incentives are nice. But you have to remember their limits.
The massive price increases in doing anything make oil fuel replacement a big capital cost. And buying an EV to replace the battered old hatch back isn’t cheap either.
Make a flat payment to all rural households then.
(Incentives aren't just nice - the whole economy is based on them. )
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Err I am a conservative and support Kemi
Not sure that has been banned yet despite @Brixian59 witterings
@HYUFD is a defacto Farage supporter and is some distance from me
Come now, HYUFD is the one true Conservative!
(It is unfair to call him Faragist - he'd hardly diagnose Cleverly as the cure if so)
On party allegiance, I'm loosely Lib Dem (but have also been both Lab- and Con-curious). I'm no fan of Davey though.
If you have followed @HYUFD on here over the years his far right views are obvious and his views on Cleverly are a mystery to many of us
Trump fanboi Nick Ferrari, who a couple of weeks ago was frustrated that Starmer hadn't got involved in Iran, sets a bear trap for John Healey who duly fell in it big time.
Hats off to Nick for a highly successful Gotcha and Healey panicked to Muppet status. Another one we can strike off the Starmer replacement list.
Honest Bob on WATO now as Reform Shadow Chancellor. I know he is a repulsive Charlatan but he is very good at broadcast politics.
He was pretty embarrassing on Good Morning Britain, too.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
Does it cover the cost of "the Conservative plan to axe the fuel tax"?*
NS drilling provided £5B tax revenue in 23/24 (commons library) and fuel duty raises well over £20B per year (OBR forecasts - don't laugh! - but also recent years results)
*They don't mean this, I think, but it's what the tanker says
It is the image and message that speaks to the subject
Wtf does that mean? Do you support a 95% unfunded tax cut with gilts at 5%?
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Point 1: are the Conservatives really still doing slogans on the sides of vehicles? How many 350 millions to the NHS buses is equal to one tanker with "Fuel Brittania" on the side?
The £350M claim was genius from a campaign POV.
You can argue over the merits of it in RL but as a campaign slogan, it was extraordinarily successful. Which is why, a decade on, REMAIN campaigners are still whining about it....
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
Steve Fisher has been pretty good with his forecasts in previous elections hasn't he?
I dont see where he gets these figures from. It would be a much jych mire dominating oerformanve than 2025 with a much mych worse Lab and Tory one with half of seats up in London which is notparticularly strong territory for Reform. It goes against polling, by elections and logic
There are some areas that look strong for Reform such as the NE, NW, Essex, IoW etc, but not their strongest areas, so when combined with their downward trend in the polls I wouldn't put them at so many gains.
I think also there are several areas that look good for the Greens so 450 gains could be a bit low, ditto the 200 for LDs. It is hard to see where Labour or Conservatives would do well, perhaps the Tories in Outer London?.
I think also will be a good night for Independents of both the Gaza and Residents Association stripes.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Point 1: are the Conservatives really still doing slogans on the sides of vehicles? How many 350 millions to the NHS buses is equal to one tanker with "Fuel Brittania" on the side?
The £350M claim was genius from a campaign POV.
You can argue over the merits of it in RL but as a campaign slogan, it was extraordinarily successful. Which is why, a decade on, REMAIN campaigners are still whining about it....
No one's whining. The fact that the campaign was a pack of lies isn't the prime reason that Brexit is perceived as a disaster, just a contributory element.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
Does it cover the cost of "the Conservative plan to axe the fuel tax"?*
NS drilling provided £5B tax revenue in 23/24 (commons library) and fuel duty raises well over £20B per year (OBR forecasts - don't laugh! - but also recent years results)
*They don't mean this, I think, but it's what the tanker says
It is the image and message that speaks to the subject
Wtf does that mean? Do you support a 95% unfunded tax cut with gilts at 5%?
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
I'm an interested person in the heating oil debate. As I've said, despite living (on the edge) in a small town, we are on oil. Gas didn't make it up our cul de sac. Two years ago we did a big extension and installed a new oil boiler. We did look at air-source/oil combinations but it wasn't that attractive at the time (really expensive up-front costs). The new part of our house is very well insulated, and we fitted new double glazing in the existing house as well as the new parts. We also had new insulation added to the upper story of the old part, but sadly the original house was built in the mid 70's and is poorly insulated for the main. Upstairs the wall were single skin with wood cladding. They now have some extra insulation between the walls and the new cladding. The loft space is well insulated.
So yes, we opted for a new, efficient oil boiler. We will use around 1200 litres of oil a year. Sorry. I was wary of switching because our old house is not well insulated. I suspect that when we do install the next heating system it will be air or ground source and will be combined with solar and battery. But it wasn't right for us yet. We have though done a lot to make our house better.
So I don't quite get why you are so down on rural users who are denied access to the gas network.
You are guilty of not living in an urban flat and cycling everywhere.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
So not having a car is actually sensible.
Strangely, not everyone has this.
Your inability to appreciate incentives in mind boggling. We’re going to make this mistake over and over again because government is just the same.
I’m entirely aware of the enormous costs associated with living in rural areas, whether that’s heating oil or fuel. That’s the costly environment i grew up in and it’s perverse to describe someone from the north of Scotland otherwise. What I disagree with is providing support only to those who have not invested in alternatives, because it rewards the kind of behaviour that in the long term deeply damages rural communities and the public finances.
Another example: I think the upcoming per mileage charge for EVs is a disgrace because it incentivises short urban journeys over long rural ones. It’s going to kill the rural economy far more than fuel duty dies, because at least long journeys tend to be more fuel efficient, all the while further contesting our cities. Per journey would be far better.
Incentives are nice. But you have to remember their limits.
The massive price increases in doing anything make oil fuel replacement a big capital cost. And buying an EV to replace the battered old hatch back isn’t cheap either.
5 year old EVs like my Kia eniro are a bargain at about £15,000. It drives as good as new, the battery has the same range as new (270 miles) and it still has 2 years of manufacturers warranty.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
To be fair to the previous Conservative government, we would be in a worse place now if they HADN'T committed to Net Zero and started the journey away from the fossil fuels that are currently blocked in the Gulf.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Err I am a conservative and support Kemi
Not sure that has been banned yet despite @Brixian59 witterings
@HYUFD is a defacto Farage supporter and is some distance from me
Come now, HYUFD is the one true Conservative!
(It is unfair to call him Faragist - he'd hardly diagnose Cleverly as the cure if so)
On party allegiance, I'm loosely Lib Dem (but have also been both Lab- and Con-curious). I'm no fan of Davey though.
If you have followed @HYUFD on here over the years his far right views are obvious and his views on Cleverly are a mystery to many of us
We are very different conservatives
I think HYUFD is an old-school Anglican Conservative that prioritises continuity, Burkean "change to conserve", and preservation of English tradition. I think you are a business-orientated law-abiding Conservative who values wealth and prosperity. Both of you are distinct wings of the Conservative party and neither of you are far-right by any stretch.
However one totemic far-right policy - involuntary repatriation - I think Kemi will implement after her election win (improbable, but follow me for a moment) and I don't know how either of you will react. Both Labour and Conservatives are entertaining policies that they would not have dreamed of or violently rejected pre-2020 and it will be interesting to see how partisans cope.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
Does it cover the cost of "the Conservative plan to axe the fuel tax"?*
NS drilling provided £5B tax revenue in 23/24 (commons library) and fuel duty raises well over £20B per year (OBR forecasts - don't laugh! - but also recent years results)
*They don't mean this, I think, but it's what the tanker says
It is the image and message that speaks to the subject
Wtf does that mean? Do you support a 95% unfunded tax cut with gilts at 5%?
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
It won't add billions. There's no point looking for consistency from Badenoch - I get that - but she's campaigning to reduce the tax burden on North Sea oil
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Point 1: are the Conservatives really still doing slogans on the sides of vehicles? How many 350 millions to the NHS buses is equal to one tanker with "Fuel Brittania" on the side?
The £350M claim was genius from a campaign POV.
You can argue over the merits of it in RL but as a campaign slogan, it was extraordinarily successful. Which is why, a decade on, REMAIN campaigners are still whining about it....
Oh, true. But I think the blinkers are off now.
Here's a question. Will everyday folk talk about "Fuel Britannia" in the same way we talked about 350 million to the NHS?
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
To be fair to the previous Conservative government, we would be in a worse place now if they HADN'T committed to Net Zero and started the journey away from the fossil fuels that are currently blocked in the Gulf.
I'm sure your're right. But politically it's a hard sell for CON
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Point 1: are the Conservatives really still doing slogans on the sides of vehicles? How many 350 millions to the NHS buses is equal to one tanker with "Fuel Brittania" on the side?
The £350M claim was genius from a campaign POV.
You can argue over the merits of it in RL but as a campaign slogan, it was extraordinarily successful. Which is why, a decade on, REMAIN campaigners are still whining about it....
Oh, true. But I think the blinkers are off now.
Here's a question. Will everyday folk talk about "Fuel Britannia" in the same way we talked about 350 million to the NHS?
No, because the stakes aren't as high. One was for a once in a lifetime-defining referendum and one is for a here today, gone tomorrow, local election campain.
But it's still probably the first decent thing the C-C-H have come up with since 2019, IMO.
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
Steve Fisher has been pretty good with his forecasts in previous elections hasn't he?
I dont see where he gets these figures from. It would be a much jych mire dominating oerformanve than 2025 with a much mych worse Lab and Tory one with half of seats up in London which is notparticularly strong territory for Reform. It goes against polling, by elections and logic
There are some areas that look strong for Reform such as the NE, NW, Essex, IoW etc, but not their strongest areas, so when combined with their downward trend in the polls I wouldn't put them at so many gains.
I think also there are several areas that look good for the Greens so 450 gains could be a bit low, ditto the 200 for LDs. It is hard to see where Labour or Conservatives would do well, perhaps the Tories in Outer London?.
I think also will be a good night for Independents of both the Gaza and Residents Association stripes.
Greens possibly a bit low yes. I mean if Labour are almost being wiped out as Fisher suggests they'd gain more than 450 in London alone. Reform do have strong areas but they are polling mid 20s not mid 40s! And they arent storming ahead in London. From a Tory perspective, outer and central London (ill be amazed if they dont get easily double Fishers proposed 124 seats in London alone, probably nearer treble), Solihull, parts of Hampshire, parts of Hunts, Welwyn Hatfield, Broxbourne, Adur etc. I mean you could get almost to 124 just on Harrow, Kensington and Westminster in all likelihood. I dont doubt it will be a really bad night overall for red and blue but this seems ridiculous
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
I'm an interested person in the heating oil debate. As I've said, despite living (on the edge) in a small town, we are on oil. Gas didn't make it up our cul de sac. Two years ago we did a big extension and installed a new oil boiler. We did look at air-source/oil combinations but it wasn't that attractive at the time (really expensive up-front costs). The new part of our house is very well insulated, and we fitted new double glazing in the existing house as well as the new parts. We also had new insulation added to the upper story of the old part, but sadly the original house was built in the mid 70's and is poorly insulated for the main. Upstairs the wall were single skin with wood cladding. They now have some extra insulation between the walls and the new cladding. The loft space is well insulated.
So yes, we opted for a new, efficient oil boiler. We will use around 1200 litres of oil a year. Sorry. I was wary of switching because our old house is not well insulated. I suspect that when we do install the next heating system it will be air or ground source and will be combined with solar and battery. But it wasn't right for us yet. We have though done a lot to make our house better.
So I don't quite get why you are so down on rural users who are denied access to the gas network.
You are guilty of not living in an urban flat and cycling everywhere.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
So not having a car is actually sensible.
Strangely, not everyone has this.
Your inability to appreciate incentives in mind boggling. We’re going to make this mistake over and over again because government is just the same.
I’m entirely aware of the enormous costs associated with living in rural areas, whether that’s heating oil or fuel. That’s the costly environment i grew up in and it’s perverse to describe someone from the north of Scotland otherwise. What I disagree with is providing support only to those who have not invested in alternatives, because it rewards the kind of behaviour that in the long term deeply damages rural communities and the public finances.
Another example: I think the upcoming per mileage charge for EVs is a disgrace because it incentivises short urban journeys over long rural ones. It’s going to kill the rural economy far more than fuel duty dies, because at least long journeys tend to be more fuel efficient, all the while further contesting our cities. Per journey would be far better.
Incentives are nice. But you have to remember their limits.
The massive price increases in doing anything make oil fuel replacement a big capital cost. And buying an EV to replace the battered old hatch back isn’t cheap either.
5 year old EVs like my Kia eniro are a bargain at about £15,000. It drives as good as new, the battery has the same range as new (270 miles) and it still has 2 years of manufacturers warranty.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
It won't add billions. There's no point looking for consistency from Badenoch - I get that - but she's campaigning to reduce the tax burden on North Sea oil
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
I'm an interested person in the heating oil debate. As I've said, despite living (on the edge) in a small town, we are on oil. Gas didn't make it up our cul de sac. Two years ago we did a big extension and installed a new oil boiler. We did look at air-source/oil combinations but it wasn't that attractive at the time (really expensive up-front costs). The new part of our house is very well insulated, and we fitted new double glazing in the existing house as well as the new parts. We also had new insulation added to the upper story of the old part, but sadly the original house was built in the mid 70's and is poorly insulated for the main. Upstairs the wall were single skin with wood cladding. They now have some extra insulation between the walls and the new cladding. The loft space is well insulated.
So yes, we opted for a new, efficient oil boiler. We will use around 1200 litres of oil a year. Sorry. I was wary of switching because our old house is not well insulated. I suspect that when we do install the next heating system it will be air or ground source and will be combined with solar and battery. But it wasn't right for us yet. We have though done a lot to make our house better.
So I don't quite get why you are so down on rural users who are denied access to the gas network.
You are guilty of not living in an urban flat and cycling everywhere.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
So not having a car is actually sensible.
Strangely, not everyone has this.
Your inability to appreciate incentives in mind boggling. We’re going to make this mistake over and over again because government is just the same.
I’m entirely aware of the enormous costs associated with living in rural areas, whether that’s heating oil or fuel. That’s the costly environment i grew up in and it’s perverse to describe someone from the north of Scotland otherwise. What I disagree with is providing support only to those who have not invested in alternatives, because it rewards the kind of behaviour that in the long term deeply damages rural communities and the public finances.
Another example: I think the upcoming per mileage charge for EVs is a disgrace because it incentivises short urban journeys over long rural ones. It’s going to kill the rural economy far more than fuel duty dies, because at least long journeys tend to be more fuel efficient, all the while further contesting our cities. Per journey would be far better.
Incentives are nice. But you have to remember their limits.
The massive price increases in doing anything make oil fuel replacement a big capital cost. And buying an EV to replace the battered old hatch back isn’t cheap either.
5 year old EVs like my Kia eniro are a bargain at about £15,000. It drives as good as new, the battery has the same range as new (270 miles) and it still has 2 years of manufacturers warranty.
15k is half gross salary for a lot of people
You’re going to struggle to find an equivalent ICE for less than £15k tbh.
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
You would only get results like that if Reform win by absolutely miles in London and hit high 30s NEV nationally
It leaves Labour with about 250 wards out of 2200 and the Tories 120 of 1130 or so
He must have been drunk
I think Reform will win around 40% of the seats up for election, because that's what happens in an FPTP world when a party is up 5 to 10 points over the competition. The LDs and the Greens will also have good nights, mostly because Labour and Conservatives are down. As far as absolute seat numbers go, I think the LDs will be second to Reform, because their vote is efficiently distributed.
The Conservatives will likely do relatively well in London, but poorly in much of the rest of the country. Labour is going to be clobbered by Reform in Leaverstan, and the Greens in Remainia. That said, they will probably be second on NEV, and will spin the result as 'we're the only alternative to Reform'.
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
You would only get results like that if Reform win by absolutely miles in London and hit high 30s NEV nationally
It leaves Labour with about 250 wards out of 2200 and the Tories 120 of 1130 or so
He must have been drunk
I think Reform will win around 40% of the seats up for election, because that's what happens in an FPTP world when a party is up 5 to 10 points over the competition. The LDs and the Greens will also have good nights, mostly because Labour and Conservatives are down. As far as absolute seat numbers go, I think the LDs will be second to Reform, because their vote is efficiently distributed.
The Conservatives will likely do relatively well in London, but poorly in much of the rest of the country. Labour is going to be clobbered by Reform in Leaverstan, and the Greens in Remainia. That said, they will probably be second on NEV, and will spin the result as 'we're the only alternative to Reform'.
They arent 5 to 10 % ahead in the areas up for election. Between a third and half the seats are in London (1800) where they are somewhere 2nd to 4th. They got about 40% of the seats last year but it was nearly all counties
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
How does that solve the fuel crisis which will hit in the next 3-6 months?
It will add billions in tax to the treasury over the next 20 years
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
It won't add billions. There's no point looking for consistency from Badenoch - I get that - but she's campaigning to reduce the tax burden on North Sea oil
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Point 1: are the Conservatives really still doing slogans on the sides of vehicles? How many 350 millions to the NHS buses is equal to one tanker with "Fuel Brittania" on the side? Point 2: I was struck by how much she reminded me of Nicola Murray in The Thick Of It.
FFS
She's totally lost the plot.
She'll be calling to pump out the mines flooded by Thatcher are start burning coal next.
Comments
It shouldn't have been decimated in the first place
Of course it will not add immediately but that is not an excuse not to do it now
Not so sure about Thatcher, she seemed a bit unhinged by the time I could vote (87), maybe she was better at first (I don't remember well enough that far back) but was very divisive overall and we're still living with the downsides of many of the policies she brought in.
It leaves Labour with about 250 wards out of 2200 and the Tories 120 of 1130 or so
He must have been drunk
Not sure that has been banned yet despite @Brixian59 witterings
@HYUFD is a defacto Farage supporter and is some distance from me
Getting elected has given him delusions of capacity.
NS drilling provided £5B tax revenue in 23/24 (commons library) and fuel duty raises well over £20B per year (OBR forecasts - don't laugh! - but also recent years results)
*They don't mean this, I think, but it's what the tanker says
(It is unfair to call him Faragist - he'd hardly diagnose Cleverly as the cure if so)
On party allegiance, I'm loosely Lib Dem (but have also been both Lab- and Con-curious). I'm no fan of Davey though.
It goes against polling, by elections and logic
The massive price increases in doing anything make oil fuel replacement a big capital cost. And buying an EV to replace the battered old hatch back isn’t cheap either.
Point 2: I was struck by how much she reminded me of Nicola Murray in The Thick Of It.
Obviously the 2026 local will be terrible for Lab and Con but who know how bad it gets and how good it is for REF/GRN/PLD/SNP...
(Incentives aren't just nice - the whole economy is based on them. )
We are very different conservatives
You can argue over the merits of it in RL but as a campaign slogan, it was extraordinarily successful. Which is why, a decade on, REMAIN campaigners are still whining about it....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_Kingdom_local_elections
There are some areas that look strong for Reform such as the NE, NW, Essex, IoW etc, but not their strongest areas, so when combined with their downward trend in the polls I wouldn't put them at so many gains.
I think also there are several areas that look good for the Greens so 450 gains could be a bit low, ditto the 200 for LDs. It is hard to see where Labour or Conservatives would do well, perhaps the Tories in Outer London?.
I think also will be a good night for Independents of both the Gaza and Residents Association stripes.
The fact that the campaign was a pack of lies isn't the prime reason that Brexit is perceived as a disaster, just a contributory element.
The overall message is to drill the North Sea
However one totemic far-right policy - involuntary repatriation - I think Kemi will implement after her election win (improbable, but follow me for a moment) and I don't know how either of you will react. Both Labour and Conservatives are entertaining policies that they would not have dreamed of or violently rejected pre-2020 and it will be interesting to see how partisans cope.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yCdX2ElMY34
Here's a question. Will everyday folk talk about "Fuel Britannia" in the same way we talked about 350 million to the NHS?
But it's still probably the first decent thing the C-C-H have come up with since 2019, IMO.
From a Tory perspective, outer and central London (ill be amazed if they dont get easily double Fishers proposed 124 seats in London alone, probably nearer treble), Solihull, parts of Hampshire, parts of Hunts, Welwyn Hatfield, Broxbourne, Adur etc. I mean you could get almost to 124 just on Harrow, Kensington and Westminster in all likelihood.
I dont doubt it will be a really bad night overall for red and blue but this seems ridiculous
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NLefTeViIB4
The Conservatives will likely do relatively well in London, but poorly in much of the rest of the country. Labour is going to be clobbered by Reform in Leaverstan, and the Greens in Remainia. That said, they will probably be second on NEV, and will spin the result as 'we're the only alternative to Reform'.
Protest too much?
They got about 40% of the seats last year but it was nearly all counties
NEW THREAD
I paid 12 grand for my Mk.2 GTI 16V when I was earning less than 9 grand/year as a Sub Lt. You've just got to want it.
I'm sure he could paint you a mural of Kemi in your bedroom ceiling.
I've a great one in my toilet bowl
She's totally lost the plot.
She'll be calling to pump out the mines flooded by Thatcher are start burning coal next.
Hey Kemi there is some tin left in Cornwall