Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Not very much over and above the existing windfall tax, I'd have thought.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 5:20 pm Am I missing something or do oil companies not make greater profits when the crude prices rise, thereby generating more tax revenues both on their own earnings and in VAT on the higher gross price of fuel?

Someone handy with a calculator should have a grasp of the sums in question and be able to suggest how much can be pre-rebated to the end user.

You'd think so.
But the last 5 or so years has convinced me that.
1) Profits are a sort of optional extra when you run a massive business.
2) Counter-intuitively, many massive businesses work very hard to avoid turning a profit.

The problem is that the profits are made by international fossil fuel extractors, not (for the most part) UK businesses.

Shell, BP, et al, together with an uplift when the crude price hits a level which is now in the real-view mirror.

Fuckin squillions then.

How much from UK operations?

According to Gemini, based on $90 BBL;

Annual Total: Combined with standard offshore corporation taxes, the total sector contribution could reach £5.1 billion for the year, nearly double the current £2.7 billion baseline forecast.

Yep, fuckin squillions, plus the VAT.

They're paying a 38% surcharge already. Lots of people don't like the surcharge but it seems to be coming in handy now.

I hadn't seen how bad the Lib Dem stuff on cutting petrol duty was.

Donald Trump’s idiotic war with Iran – cheered on by Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage – is meaning you're paying more at the pump.
Rachel Reeves' Treasury is raking in £2 billion in extra tax because of the war in Iran.
That money should be spent to cut fuel duty by 10p, bringing down prices at the pump by 12p per litre.

They're seriously claiming a fuel crisis is good for the economy there.

Iran war shows Trump not ‘reliable ally’ for UK, says Ed Davey – UK politics live

"I regret to tell you that we need to increase taxes substantially in response", Ed Davey didn't add.

Ed’s still going with “Treasury coining it in” from an energy price spike.

Presumably they'd be missing an open goal if they weren't?

LD leader Ben Swain with the facts and figures at his fingertips

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 5:35 pm Presumably they'd be missing an open goal if they weren't?

They're coining it from fuel duty. Unfortunately, they're losing income from nearly everything else as the fuel price spike hits.

Ed knows that, he was in Government when there was a sustained high petrol price (albeit not a spike as such).

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 10:21 am LD leader Ben Swain with the facts and figures at his fingertips

The French do it, and it's over a long period, cheers Ed.

I'm not someone who thinks every policy should be chucked out because the person proposing it won't give an instant answer on funding, but Ed's already claiming fantasy funding as it is. Why doesn't he just front up that taxes will probably have to go up?

The cost of Force de frappe was eye watering and depleted France's conventional forces which were also paying for overpriced kit up until the Sarkozy era.
Davey's geopolitical POV is obviously more correct by the day, which is a good reason to do some homework on the practicalities.
I've argued for over two deacdes that the US would shift their balance of power away from Europe so we should decouple from their nukes. But I was told the new Tridents are an independent deterrent apart from a few technical features that could be worked to around. Was that bullshit?

The answer to that seems to be that the British PM can fire it off today, without the US being able to stop them. But over time, the US support is needed on technical aspects. and if they don't want us to have it, they can stop supporting it.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/uk ... ternatives

Perhaps the hopeful answer is that there's no problem provided Trump goes away soon.

These days, what is the point of the Lib Dems? They've got at least three rivals for the None of The Above vote, the Greens have taken their 'Progressive without voting Labour' label and they don't seem to have any identifiable policies.

They're a nicer version of the Tories, with a nicely concentrated vote. This is very much all right with me, but I don't want to hear too many lectures from them.

Why are societal costs like health centers passed on to developers? We then wonder why stuff doesn't get built.