Tim Wakeling

At 40 mpg, a petrol car would use 1200 litres which would cost £635 in fuel duty alone, so it's still a lot cheaper than that. Fuel duty needs to be replaced with something when no one pays it any more.

If the rate is 3p, electric cars will still be far cheaper to run than petrol and diesel, a distinction which is important to the transition. Fuel duty alone is ~5p a mile.

I think it sounds fair, and the rate can be adjusted in future as needed (up or down). Cars are not zero-impact, after all.

Like Zohran, Zack offers the thrill of cost free rebellion.

The Spectator are confused.

It's not going to be cost free.

Billionaires are going to pay more.

Join.greenparty.org.uk

So a temporary order to allow a bit of redistricting in partial response to Republican gerrymandering was all it took to "make America great again"? I had no idea the bar was that low, but ok.

Ah yes, "spread nationwide", but starting with the south of course.

Absolutely, but you don't make the case in that way. You simply show people what you're going to invest in, focusing on things they care about (e.g. energy bills), and then explain how you will pay for that. (There's a climate benefit too, but it's probably not a key part of the sell.)

The vast majority of flights are taken by the wealthiest deciles, and flying is a choice anyway. I am relaxed about the idea that the poorest people wouldn't be able to afford to fly. If that meant sufficient revenue to fund services properly, they would be far better off in other ways.

I bet some would, yes, but many would not. Changing their fuelling arrangements wouldn't be trivial.

As for the cost transferring to the customers, that's fine. Air travel deserves to be more expensive than it is, and less well off people don't fly.

Tax the wealthy, but in lots of ways, not just a wealth tax.

For example, taxing aviation fuel in the same way we currently tax petrol and diesel would raise £7.5 billion a year, with no ill effects at all on most people.

Well we just need to do both, don't we? The funds ought to come from elsewhere in general taxation, not bills.

So it turns out that Americans *can* elect a socialist if they put their minds to it! (Most Democrats are a long way from socialism, let alone communism.)

Congratulations to Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York, the richest city in the world. I look forward to seeing what he can do with it.

I hope so. But it will take a while. Some people are very used to just shouting "Just get a Mac" to anyone experiencing a computing problem, without any acknowledgement of what Macs cost.

But I thought snarky contempt for those with lower budgets was practically written into Apple's constitution?

How, exactly, do his poll ratings affect his power? He's not up for re-election anyway.

A statistic that continues to live rent free in my mind: half of all international shipping is just moving fossil fuels around.

I agree with you wholeheartedly when voting. You need to understand, and if you vote without caring it still counts.

But this isn't a vote; this is just a poll. It doesn't count, and those responding know that it doesn't. So they feel free to say whatever.

Agreed, but I don't think most people expect it to be this parliament. It's the "not in my lifetime" line from Starmer that is angering many. In other words, Labour *never* intends to address it.

I understand what you're saying but you can't label people like that who haven't really given the issue any thought. People who say "Labour" to a pollster may not necessarily be expressing anything other than a sentiment of "same again I suppose; don't much care". Doesn't mean they're right wing.

There will be some centre right voters who feel Labour speaks for them, but I suspect not an enormous number.

Some are politically disengaged and haven't really evaluated Labour's position in their view since the last GE.

Some still believe that Labour is the only credible alternative to the Tories, or have other objections to the Greens or Lib Dems which means they feel unable to switch.

We are talking here about voters in a poll, not the party leadership. While Labour's government is certainly "centre-right", their *voters* are centre and centre-left, so it's appropriate to consider them together with others like that.

This is the elephant in the room. I kept wondering, amid talk of Temple Mills, why a new depot couldn't just be built. With such a huge potential for expanded services on a line that already has capacity aside from the depot (right?), I'd imagine the economic case is not that difficult to make.

If you blame migrants collectively for the horrible actions of a few but do not hold white people collectively responsible when white people commit heinous crimes, that's racism. Just saying.

I agree such words can sound hollow, but think that's because the people saying them are often doing nothing about it, or in many cases actively encouraging the behaviour they're pretending to condemn (eg. in US shootings). Maybe it's different if they are actually doing everything they can.

But we don't have open primaries like they do in the US. Voters have never got to pick their candidates before ... have they?

Farage thinks so too; that's why he wants a GE in 2027 before it's too late. I hope he and you are right, Layla. I'm inclined to allow myself just a bit of cautious optimism.

Trains in the UK are not empty. The system is stretched almost beyond capacity.

Almost as incredible as Americans thinking that's expensive. :)

It's a very weird name. I can see what they're trying to do, but the result is that no one can talk about them without coming across odd or confused or both.

"Are you voting for Your Party?"
"My party?"
"No, Your Party"
"Your Party?"
"Yes, my party. But representing you."
"What?"

I am not anti-independence either; I can understand the desire to be free of the English (despite being one), and have no particular love of the flag. I think Scotland would be fine, but Wales would struggle.