100%, yes
27.02.2026 10:49
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
100%, yes
It's great to think that this might actually make some senior Labour bods realise that the shift to the right isn't just not inevitable, it's election-losing for a left wing party. They can't capture the Reform/Tory voters and they will lose the voters aligned more with the Green policies.
Wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see that, Jenrick has absolutely no principles he won't sell out for the prospect of a win.
Trouble is that under our current system, tactical voting not only works but it's a necessity. Our voting system is completely unsuited to multi-party elections, so people have to vote tactically or risk seeing someone win who is loathed by the majority of voters.
A bit of advice to #Reform politicians - if you are not invited to speak at a student event, take it on the chin like a grown up and move on with your life. Don't threaten the university, because that makes you look like a bunch of petulant children rather than supposedly serious statespeople.
Bitcoin was trading at $126k in October and now trades at less than $64k. Which price is closer to the correct fair value, and why?
My view: there's no intrinsic value to bitcoin, so the fair value is actually closer to $0 than anything, so my view is that today's price is closer to correct.
"World's worst businessman/politician (take your pick) tries to give advice on international trade after alienating his closest trading partners"
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...
Does Trump seriously think that dealing with China is more dangerous than dealing with the US at the moment? As far as I'm aware, China hasn't recently threatened us with tariffs just for stating that we respect our allies' sovereignty.
And does he think that the US looks strong right now? Because it doesn't, it looks like a bully picking on those it thinks can't fight back, while killing its own citizens and failing to provide the basics like healthcare and public safety.
That's not strength.
And FIFA actually gave him one. Wonder how they feel about that now.
In this instance I can't see how it's relevant at all, though, because the claim seems to fail the tests for defamation at every stage.
I suspect that part doesn't matter any more than it matters which individual staff member actually did the editing. When a body publishes a programme they accept liability for the content they publish - it doesn't matter whether they make changes themselves or not.
"Has every reason to be angry about it"?? No he doesn't, he incited the riot, he pardoned the insurrectionists, he said all the words that he was quoted as having said. His words were abridged, that's all the BBC actually did - it did absolutely no harm to Trump that he didn't cause himself.
So far what they have said is that it will probably be linked to the odometer reading at MOTs, so after getting the annual MOT the owner would need to make a declaration and pay the appropriate per-mile charge.
Expressed in those terms, it really does look like a tax cut from 51% to 39%, i.e. a subsidy. Basically it all depends how you express the figures!
I definitely see that, but another way to look at it is the percentage tax per litre of petrol. In 2008 average fuel price was apparently 103.9p, with 52.95p of that being duty (51% tax). Presently average petrol cost is 135.07p per litre with fuel duty unchanged, so 39% tax.
It has all the feel of a subsidy through reverse fiscal drag. Normally fiscal drag refers to increased tax burden without changing rates by freezing allowances and letting them devalue with inflation, this might be the only example I can think of fiscal drag being used as a subsidy.
Fuel has still gotten more expensive at least partly due to supply of crude oil being more expensive, but it has been less pronounced because the government has kept fuel duty at the same level for the best part of 2 decades. It's set per litre, so isn't affected by supply cost changes.
(also have an EV, so ditto)
There's an argument that this is in fact true. The fuel duty has been frozen for 16 years now, meaning the government have repeatedly rejected the increases that would have added to the tax take.
Like I said, not life or death, likely to be around £100-200 a year based on the fairly short commute to work, but definitely glad that I'm earning again rather than trying to keep the car going without a reliable salary.
It's more of an annoyance than anything - when I bought the EV it was free of road tax because it was good for the environment and I could charge it cheaply at home. Now I have road tax to pay, plus this per mile tax due to come in.
Just feels like the goalposts are constantly being moved.
Mostly increase your taxes a little, assuming you are earning enough to be at least a basic rate taxpayer. The one comfort might be that higher earners and landlords ended up paying more, but overall it was a bit of a damp squib after all the wild predictions.
Picture I mocked up during my General Election Campaign last year showing the level of national debt over time, with significant increases under the Tories even during Austerity.
The irony being that the notion in question is a complete myth. Labour are no worse at handling the economy than Tories. Just look at the last Tory government - in charge for 14 years and the national debt surged to over 100% of GDP. Despite austerity being pushed as necessary to balance the budget
As a fact check, worth remembering that Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, long before Biden was President.
I know facts are hard for Trump...
This alone should be enough reason for people to never trust the Tories in a position of power again until they admit their egregious mistakes, revoke the memberships of those responsible, and make changes to their party so this sort of thing cannot happen again.
So... never.
Trump is suing the BBC for defamation. Defamation requires a demonstrable harm to one's reputation. What harm could anyone do to Trump's reputation that he hasn't done to himself?
Complete non-starter, even before you consider the lack of jurisdiction that Florida has over the UK broadcaster.
Yep, odd how they've gone very quiet on that subject, almost like they only wanted it when it was going to give them a lot more power and influence...
He's angry now because more and more people are realising that he did in fact rile up that crowd and caused the riot.
So the edited speech from Trump sounds really bad for the BBC at first glance until you realise that the bits edited together were from the same speech and that Trump actually said both parts, just not together. At worst, BBC is guilty of misrepresenting the exact timings of his speech.
Sickening number, every single one of them should consider what it means to be a public servant and should immediately resign when they realise just how far they have strayed from what should be the core of a politician's professional life.