Edward

The fundamental political-economy for the government is that is objectively implementing a soft left economic policy on speed whilst being hated by lots of left leaning people because of its other policies and rhetoric.

They've already eaten the cats and dogs?

But not an increase in petrol vehicles, because that's still predicted to fall.

Charging infrastructure round the border is pretty rubbish, so it's an issue but it'll be a good few years before it becomes a major one.

A reduction in EV sales compared to the previous prediction, or in other words a hefty increase in EV sales, just not as hefty as before.

a little girl is asking why not both while standing in a kitchen . ALT: a little girl is asking why not both while standing in a kitchen .

My pitch for journalism:

Isn't afraid of numbers because she wasn't paying attention to them anyway.

There slight Barking 2010 exception applies, but a) he got that job because of his work in Lambeth in 2006 and b) the strategy was essentially to pretend that the longstanding Labour council was nothing to do with them.

Not bizarre when you consider who wins the internal arguments in government and who has left/had their roles drastically curtailed.

It's a government whose comfort zone is campaigning and whose experience was campaigning in opposition.

Minor point. But this is the OBR saying that the briefing about income tax being dropped because of improved forecasts is bollocks.

Though the issue there is that fuel duty raises about £20bn a year so that means you've got a £10bn hole in the budget once the EV changeover is complete (and EVs increase costs to roads upkeep because they weigh more.)

The mileage based charge is proposed to be about half what you'd pay in fuel duty, so it weakens the appeal of EVs but doesn't eliminate it.

The problem being that they'll come back?

Sorry, no, Motability was not about 'helping the most vulnerable' - it was about providing people who need modified vehicles modified vehicles!

Similar levels of indignation, but a very different register. It's written in a really florid, heavily stylised Latin, so it's like a Peter Hitchens letter but published in the LRB.

What's interesting is that in opposition Starmer slowly but surely improved his presentation, but in government that has led to them assuming that everything is presentation and not improving at all.

My old department used to have a prize where contestants would read out a passage from Latin/Old English/Old Irish/Welsh/Old Norse. I did Gildas one year wearing a tinfoil hat.

On the basis that fairness is a fundamental British value, it seems only reasonable. It's hard enough for an opposition leader on top of their brief to respond to a Budget they've just heard delivered without time to prepare, making Badenoch do it is just cruelty.

It was striking IMV that the OBR publishing early meant that Faisal Islam and Helen Miller got to talk *more* and we had less 'how is that gonna play in Fungibleton Central?' style waffle.

Will nobody think of the poor oppressed masses with net wealth in the single figure millions?

I fear that as a society we're putting a strain on the definition of the word "regressive" beyond what it can reasonably be expected to bear

But observers have questioned the veracity of his controversial comments and you may work for an American media conglomerate?

The beatings will continue, but in order to comply with OBR forecasts the rest of the sentence has had to be cut.

Which does also suggest that even if that realisation arises, it'll do so in stages, so he'll try to dump Reeves to save his job.

It’s like they’ve taken some of the really amateurish, contrived and artificial attempts at tax avoidance that were common in the noughties and applied the same techniques to manifesto tax promise avoidance.

A Posadist, technically. I blame the dolphins.

On the one hand Spain is different because the civil war isn't really over, they just stopped shooting each other, but on the other hand we're culturally influenced by the Americans enough that everything becoming partisan is a real threat we need to ward against.

I think the biological/social question ignores the fact that regardless of the causes, the person whose gender identity or sexual orientation doesn't fit what it "ought" to be still exists and still doesn't fit expectations. Do people get to live their lives how they wish or not?