I think that he is suffering from Tory (blue rinse) blindness.
A tax increase is still a tax increase and unlike an increase in the top rate of income tax, an increase in duty on fuel affects pretty much anything and everything, even though the costs may be "hidden".
The Chancellor is still going to have to get creative with his budget, unless he is happy to increase government borrowing.

Once again you didn't take the time to understand the comment - the comment to which I responded specifically mentioned the transport industry - as an owner of a sizable transport company I think I am in a stronger position to comment than you. I never made any mention of public transport, private mileage etc. Slow down and read what I put before embarrassing yourself any more than you already have.

The Black Swan is a serious issue - you only have to look at Flybe - well run businesses will cope but it will hurt. I don't employ anyone in a crap job - yes I have people who have less responsibility than others and their pay reflects that - all jobs have a degree of repetition even mine, a brain surgeon etc. - its the nature of work. The idea that everyone has a crap job is an unnecessary slur that reflects the overall quality of your responses.

You responded to my previous post:

Early indications are that fuel duty is set to rise as the first move to fill the hole in the Tory spending plans.
Probably the least sensitive area for voters but, a huge hit for the transport industry, many of whom are already struggling.

With this:

That's what fuel escalators are for - simple solution pass the cost on - everybody is in the same boat. There will be a lag month one but after that no issue.

I agree that you didn't seem to answer the post in full and after spending over 30 years dealing with a myriad of transport companies, I am well aware that most domestic carriers now use a fuel surcharge to allow them to change their prices at relatively short notice and of the "lag" that you speak about.

You did appear to ignore the effect on the general public and completely ignored or weren't aware that a change in fuel surcharge will affect everyone and is just another tax increase.
I'm also pretty sure that within the extremely competitive transport sector, many, many hauliers and carriers go bust at regular intervals so, I think my point was valid, dont you ??

you need to remem er, the politics of envy run deep with wrencat and kingstreetcat (who, I assume blames Officer Dibble for everything, afterall, he wears blue.) The Labour party are so inept, so not a worthy opposition, no news from them, so the lunatic fringe on the left try and puff out their chests by saying EVERYTHING is the Conservatives fault. They (conveniently) forget the years of Fubar rule under Blurgh and Brown that contributed to an economic crisis, the ignore illegal wars, let them rant.

Lose the ability to question what is going on and you may as well be a sheep.
No politics of envy on my part and you're actually correct about Labour being inept - I suppose there is a first time for everything (you being right that is).

Having viewed last night’s Andrew Neil interviews with Starmer and long Bailey and also looking at Burgon on Marr last Sunday . The harsh fact of the matter is labour is unelectable. They have no policies that resonate with the voters so the only device they have to justify themselves is the mass attack on Patel. Conveniently forgetting the hounding from office Sara champion for highlighting Asian grooming gangs in Rotherham.

Is that the same Andrew Neil that Boris ran away from ?

This may come as a shock but what you say to get elected may not be what you put in place once appointed. I know it is what Johnson did on a daily basis but he effects all our lives the Labour candidates are looking to lead a party.
If it is Starmer or Nandy I expect a much better organised opposition with a more recognisable shadow cabinet.
Johnson will not be able to produce the Marxist card and he may actually have to do something about the racism in his own party.

It certainly is, turns out it was a smart move. What’s that old saying, winner’s can smile losers can please them selves

So, you're happy for potential PMs to duck & dive, avoid scrutiny, go unchallenged, and unquestioned? You make it sound like it was an achievement worth celebrating.

Just remember - don't think "it couldn't happen here".

Indeed, even when the victor is a true blue coward, so frightened of scrutiny that his henchman is now trying to "close down" anyone who may dare to question the actions of our leader and his party.
It was a shrewd move (avoiding the Neil interview) but, at some point he will face scrutiny for his actions, even if the new world pandemic gives him a cop out.
Johnson is one of those "good time" leaders who is happy to take the cheers and back slapping when all is going well but, will be off like a shot when he is actually tested.
Time will tell just how credible he is.

What is shows is he is a bit smarter than the rest - tick in the box for me

All politicians are the same - Blair didn't want the Chilcot enquiry published - so they will do whatever it takes they never answer a straight question. Starmer last night - "which policies of Corbyn's have you or are you going to ditch" - answer mumble, mumble etc

At least he put himself in the position of being interviewed so you could hear him answer "mumble, mumble". Johnson just bottled it.

The problem with Johnson was that he avoided all scrutiny, I don’t remember many leaders running into a fridge to avoid any questions. He got away with it this time because of Brexit but he will need to rethink his strategy for the next general election.

Yes, but to not say anything of any substance - what was the point - he was like Boris in a strong position so it is damage limitation on his part, same as Johnson before the election. It will be the same outcome - Starmer will win at a canter.

Yep, really smart.
And for you to say that infers that he may not have come out of the interview too well.
If you were confident in the man and his views, you should be happy to put him in front of or against anyone, confident that he would prevail.

How very disappointing.

Even one of his most myopic supporters seems to know that he would have "come second", not great for the leader of the "all new" UK

If the TV interviewers stuck to topic for which the interviewee was requested that would help but they don't - they get Hancock on to talk about the coronavirus and then ask him about Patel and they wonder why there is no trust

One thing is for certain - no matter how bad he was it wouldn't have been the car crash that Corbyn or Sturgeon were.

It currently so difficult to get any minister on the media they have to take every opportunity available. I would be worried if you struggle in an interview with those famous investigative journalists Holly and Phil when they ask the important questions like will you be changing the nappies. I believe after a lot of mumbling his answer was probably, the problem is he does lack practice because he was not around by the birth of some of his children.

And there was me thinking it was the job of the PM and government to run the country, not provide sounbites for mealey mouthed left wing propoganda from an organisation that, finally, is to be disbanded, or at the very least, lose the umbilical cord that allows it to air garbage like The One Show, Songs of Praise, Strictly Come Dancing.

IF the BBC wants to crete commercial programmes, let them do it with commercial funding.

(again, a thread in it's own right)

If the BBC was to go down the far right route of capitalism then they would take advertising revenue from the independent companies. This is because due to the success of the last ten years the only boom in advertising is for gambling and death. There is a finite amount available and if you like the US media coverage then obviously you must possess a very short attention span. The American football game is over 60 minutes but takes up three hours on TV due to the number of breaks.
If privatisation is so good why do we have to keep taking over failed train lines and returning them to public ownership.
I have another question how many of the privatised utilities are still in the hands of U.K. businesses.

Got to love all this BBC bashing.

The people who are banging on about privatising the BBC, or having it rely on commercial funding, will be the same people who will be moaning when there are adverts in the middle of Homes Under the Hammer and Cash in the Attic.

Never ceases to amaze me how abjectly wrong you can be, but keep the incorrect generalisations coming.

So all these angry folk are going to suddenly start signing up for subscription TV packages at £X a month?

Let's face it. These people just don't want to have to be told to pay for the BBC licence, it's completely at odds with their wannabe libertarianism. They'll get a shock when they learn that Netflix, Amazon and Apple TV aren't free. At least the choice of paying for Jeremy Clarkson's bigotry will be one they've made themselves, though.

Andrew Neil would have covered all sorts of topics and Boris (well, more likely Cummings) knew this and didn't want to risk "getting found out".
A calculated, if not very democratic, risk.
Again, it shows lack of bottle and confidence to shy away from scrutiny and as with most things, the truth will come out at some point.

I wonder if there will be a wedding to go along with his latest addition, just to keep the blue rinse brigade happy.
Mind you, the do seem very accepting of anything he does for now.

Remind me, how many kids has he got and to how many different mothers
Can you imagine what would be said if he was a Labour leader ?