UK Politics

[mattiloy]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

An issue on the left wing generally, and the Green party specifically, is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It happened with Corbyn's Labour, and it's happened for the Greens before about wind power, wave power, nuclear power. I think their councillors have done a good job in Bristol and Carla has generally spoken responsibly about this,

 

I'm not going to give the Greens a free pass if they're going to impede more efficient energy by indulging NIMBYism. I want the party as a whole to grow up.

 

I disagree. The government should take decisions based on the lifetime value- including trying to quantify the nature value of the alternatives and the implied costs of financing- and then make the best decision. Not the one that gives them the best bang for the buck in a moment, or a 5 year term. A lot of the issues with the current state of uk public finances are a product of short term decision making. I understand that the political system disincentivises long term decision making, and that its difficult to quantify things like nature value. But they should always strive to make that decision:

 

Lifetime value of alternative = present value of infrastructure + future value added from nature benefits - present value of cost (including maintenance, financing costs, opportunity cost of funds)

 

Whichever is the greater should be the winner and they should show their workings and lets be honest about it.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

I disagree. The government should take decisions based on the lifetime value- including trying to quantify the nature value of the alternatives and the implied costs of financing- and then make the best decision. Not the one that gives them the best bang for the buck in a moment, or a 5 year term. A lot of the issues with the current state of uk public finances are a product of short term decision making. I understand that the political system disincentivises long term decision making, and that its difficult to quantify things like nature value. But they should always strive to make that decision:

 

Lifetime value of alternative = present value of infrastructure + future value added from nature benefits - present value of cost (including maintenance, financing costs, opportunity cost of funds)

 

Whichever is the greater should be the winner and they should show their workings and lets be honest about it.

Governments/politicians making short term decisions isn't the same issue as voting down policies that improve infrastructure and people's lives because "they're not good enough". I criticise people who voted against AV in the referendum because "it was the wrong system". I'll criticise Blair for a lot of things, but introducing civil partnerships was a step in the right direction and helped make progress that then led to Cameron and Miliband legalising gay marriage.

 

Progress is progress, and while there's a lot of times I wish it were faster, or went further, I strongly believe in voting for some progress over none if you're chasing it at all.

[mattiloy]

2 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

They don't want pylons, they don't want solar farms, they don't want HS2, they don't want nuclear power. They just don't want anything built. Embarrassing party.

HS2 is a white elephant whose only conceivable purpose was to be to get MPs home quicker to their constituencies in the north on the weekend. The funding should have gone to regional high speed like liverpool to hull.

 

Nuclear power is unnecessary in the uk. Its an island at the far end of the gulf stream. There will never be a day when tidal, solar and wind isnt sufficient if their is sufficient capacity. 
 

Not sure where you get that on wind farms. Theyre in their manifesto.

[steviewevie]

I don't know why they bother with experts, they're all on this forum.

[mattiloy]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

Governments/politicians making short term decisions isn't the same issue as voting down policies that improve infrastructure and people's lives because "they're not good enough". I criticise people who voted against AV in the referendum because "it was the wrong system". I'll criticise Blair for a lot of things, but introducing civil partnerships was a step in the right direction and helped make progress that then led to Cameron and Miliband legalising gay marriage.

 

Progress is progress, and while there's a lot of times I wish it were faster, or went further, I strongly believe in voting for some progress over none if you're chasing it at all.

You look at the voting record of almost any labour MP 2010-2024 and you’ll see that they vote against a net good tory policy because they prefer a net better solution (not least over brexit). Thats how opposition works and its healthy, many ideas that come to light from the opposition in the battleground of ideas in the commons end up being adopted later.

[fraybentos1]

27 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

whose only conceivable purpose was to be to get MPs home quicker to their constituencies in the north on the weekend

aw shut up lol 'only conceivable purpose' utter shite.

Corbyn 'would keep HS2' if elected | Meridian - ITV News Here's corbyn backing it anyway just for the lols

 

29 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Nuclear power is unnecessary in the uk. Its an island at the far end of the gulf stream. There will never be a day when tidal, solar and wind isnt sufficient if their is sufficient capacity. 

aw sorry it's so simple, we will put you in charge! what about actually harnessing that energy even if what you say is true. Oppose nuclear and get more coal burning- see germany for further details

 

30 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

Not sure where you get that on wind farms. Theyre in their manifesto

I said solar farms- google it and you'll see plenty of green opposition. But but let me guess ''they aren't against them they just think XYZ is better' nope- they're NIMBYs plain and simple. Look at their co-leader rallying against some pylons the other day. 

 

They will always make perfect the enemy of good and it's not how to run a country or get things done quickly

[steviewevie]

Greens are themselves a coalition like all parties...a mix of ecologically minded conservatives, hippies, and now disgruntled corbynites. But, they now have 4 MPs and so have become more of a player and could have a bigger say in the years to come, but they too will have their own internal trouble on stuff like this like all parties do.

 

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

You look at the voting record of almost any labour MP 2010-2024 and you’ll see that they vote against a net good tory policy because they prefer a net better solution (not least over brexit). Thats how opposition works and its healthy, many ideas that come to light from the opposition in the battleground of ideas in the commons end up being adopted later.

Half of it isn't about preferring a net better solution, it's about playing politics. The way opposition works in this country hasn't been healthy for a while, and the fact that the Tories got away with not doing anything except electioneering for the past 20 months in government is on the opposition as well as them. I'm glad Labour are trying to get something (anything) moving now, but we've been in standstill since Truss/Kwarteng got kicked out, and that inertia wasn't held to account.

[lazyred]

When the tories relaxed the steps to net zero it repelled centrists but didnt attract reform supporters

 

[lazyred]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

I don't know why they bother with experts, they're all on this forum.

 

 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[cellar]

On 7/9/2024 at 2:12 PM, lost said:

 

I actually think this is extremely likely in the autumn statement.

Really, is there something Labour have said about it? I would love to see it, but it's a big change... Would they flat rate at Basic Rate top up and nothing else, or try to find a middle ground? The latter would be complex to implement for companies and HMRC.

 

Edit: And the former not popular with anyone on higher than Basic Rate tax band...

Edited July 10 by cellar

[lost]

18 minutes ago, cellar said:

Really, is there something Labour have said about it? I would love to see it, but it's a big change... Would they flat rate at Basic Rate top up and nothing else, or try to find a middle ground? The latter would be complex to implement for companies and HMRC.

 

Edit: And the former not popular with anyone on higher than Basic Rate tax band...

 

I think Reeves mentioned it in 2016 and it was a middle ground so that would be basic payers getting more and higher less.

[cellar]

1 minute ago, lost said:

 

I think Reeves mentioned it in 2016 and it was a middle ground so that would be basic payers getting more and higher less.

Interesting, well yeah that would be a fantastic change. Fingers crossed.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

10 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

Yeah cause the only way you can possibly be in favour of green policies is to live like a caveman! Good point.

green policies will bring that about, which some scrutiny will make clear.

 

 

 

[LJS]

On 7/9/2024 at 10:07 AM, steviewevie said:

Means testing would probably open a massive can of worms....but wealthier pensioners should probably be paying more tax either on their income or wealth relative to worse off working people...

 

On 7/9/2024 at 1:17 PM, cellar said:

100% they should pay more tax. 

Also need to bin tax relief that Higher and Additional Rate earners get on their pension contributions.

Will never happen though.

pensioners pay tax at exactly the same rate as everyone else. Your pension is counted as income in exactly the same way as your wages are. Whilst I personally think high earners should pay more tax i don't think people with large pension incomes should be taxed more than people with high earned incomes.

Where pensioners gain is that they don't pay NI  - which I assume is based on the myth that the NI you pay during your working life pays for your pension when you retire.  I think it would be politically difficult to change that but personally i'm not opposed to the idea.

I should probably declare an interest here  - I am of pension age but still work And claim my state pension so i personally benefit from not paying NI. 

 

I have always believed we should do away with NI & just have income tax & just to be clear - yes that means I would be happy to pay more tax.

 

Don't know much about tax relief on pension contributions but the principle that basic rate tax payers get tax relief seems reasonable. But if you are a higher rate tax payer, it seems reasonable that you just get tax relief at the basic rate -  and there may be a case for imposing some sort of celling where you stop getting tax relief at all.

 

And while I am in turkey voting for Xmas mode, the triple lock is a piece of nonsense. Why should pensioners alone be guaranteed an annual increase which is almost guaranteed to to be higher than most workers & way higher than those on benefits.

 

 

[steviewevie]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

 

pensioners pay tax at exactly the same rate as everyone else. Your pension is counted as income in exactly the same way as your wages are. Whilst I personally think high earners should pay more tax i don't think people with large pension incomes should be taxed more than people with high earned incomes.

Where pensioners gain is that they don't pay NI  - which I assume is based on the myth that the NI you pay during your working life pays for your pension when you retire.  I think it would be politically difficult to change that but personally i'm not opposed to the idea.

I should probably declare an interest here  - I am of pension age but still work And claim my state pension so i personally benefit from not paying NI. 

 

I have always believed we should do away with NI & just have income tax & just to be clear - yes that means I would be happy to pay more tax.

 

Don't know much about tax relief on pension contributions but the principle that basic rate tax payers get tax relief seems reasonable. But if you are a higher rate tax payer, it seems reasonable that you just get tax relief at the basic rate -  and there may be a case for imposing some sort of celling where you stop getting tax relief at all.

 

 

And while I am in turkey voting for Xmas mode, the triple lock is a piece of nonsense. Why should pensioners alone be guaranteed an annual increase which is almost guaranteed to to be higher than most workers & way higher than those on benefits.

 

 

I just meant more on income tax rather than NI, and more on wealth like CGT/inheritance...which yes affects everyone making money that way...but definitely includes pensioners.

Edited July 11 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

Good work Reeves.

 

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I just meant more on income tax rather than NI, and more on wealth like CGT/inheritance...which yes affects everyone making money that way...but definitely includes pensioners.

although as I get closer to pension age I feel the pull of personal greed on my political direction...

[pink_triangle]

22 hours ago, LJS said:

theoretically yes, but you often have to vote for an even worse c**t to get rid of the c**t you don't like

Assuming your talking at a constituency level, I think very few are voting based on their individual mp.