• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr. Sam

Member
Stephen Bush brought up an interesting point on the New Statesman podcast, namely that the number of self-employed people looks set to increase exponentially over the coming years, and it's therefore economically and politically wise to get in tax increases now before that number grows and you have a larger number of people feeling they've had something "inflicted" upon them rather than something "just being" how it's always been.
 
T

TimmmV

Member
CyclopsRock said:
“That is crazy because it is the cheapest and most popular source of energy."

Maybe you should pay some tax then?
Click to expand...

The article says they're raising by up to 800%

I know no one likes taxes going up, but that seems a pretty steep increase to me. Especially when consumption of renewable energy still needs plenty of encouragement
 
P

Psychotext

Member
Number45 said:
Not wanting to jump to their defence, but not all of this accurate right? They specifically said that they believed this was warranted precisely because some of those benefits are now available to the self-employed (a pension at least).
Click to expand...

One of those benefits... wonderful (especially given what the state pension is actually worth). How about the whole host of others? Not least absolutely zero job security in any form and being completely fucked if you get ill / pregnant / whatever. That's before you get into the additional expenses involved in being self employed, and well... actually getting people to pay you.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
TimmmV said:
The article says they're raising by up to 800%

I know no one likes taxes going up, but that seems a pretty steep increase to me. Especially when consumption of renewable energy still needs plenty of encouragement
Click to expand...

But isn't that just because it was heavily subsidised before? Or, rather, it was significantly lower than for most companies? I just think it's weird that they can simultaneously boast about being super great AND that they need treatment to keep it that way.
 
T

TimmmV

Member
CyclopsRock said:
But isn't that just because it was heavily subsidised before? Or, rather, it was significantly lower than for most companies? I just think it's weird that they can simultaneously boast about being super great AND that they need treatment to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Why is that weird? Renewable energy is good and people should be incentivised to use it, but its also a new technology which is expensive and replaces things that already work. Boasting about the advantages while also wanting incentives to encourage adoption is totally reasonable in this case
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
TimmmV said:
Why is that weird? Renewable energy is good and people should be incentivised to use it, but its also a new technology which is expensive and replaces things that already work. Boasting about the advantages while also wanting incentives to encourage adoption is totally reasonable in this case
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously *they* want the incentives, just like French farmers want CAP and I want film companies to get loads of free money. But I think if they're making the argument that, basically, they're the best solution to the problem of energy being a non-abundant thing - IE we need energy to be generated - then they should have to pay taxes like everyone else who claims to be the best solution.
 
K

kmag

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Yeah, obviously *they* want the incentives, just like French farmers want CAP and I want film companies to get loads of free money. But I think if they're making the argument that, basically, they're the best solution to the problem of energy being a non-abundant thing - IE we need energy to be generated - then they should have to pay taxes like everyone else who claims to be the best solution.
Click to expand...

Like the nuclear industry?
 
M

Mindwipe

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Yeah, obviously *they* want the incentives, just like French farmers want CAP and I want film companies to get loads of free money. But I think if they're making the argument that, basically, they're the best solution to the problem of energy being a non-abundant thing - IE we need energy to be generated - then they should have to pay taxes like everyone else who claims to be the best solution.
Click to expand...

Fair enough if we get the government money we've spent subsidising nuclear enormously - hell, just BNFL's pension liabilities alone (which the taxpayer has had to keep afloat) are crazy.

We should work on the basis of the substantial risk to nuclear liabilities being defaulted on and state funds having to sort it out because you can't ignore nuclear cleanup too. It's happened too many times before to ignore.
 
T

TimmmV

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Yeah, obviously *they* want the incentives, just like French farmers want CAP and I want film companies to get loads of free money. But I think if they're making the argument that, basically, they're the best solution to the problem of energy being a non-abundant thing - IE we need energy to be generated - then they should have to pay taxes like everyone else who claims to be the best solution.
Click to expand...

She clarifies the reasons for that in the article you quoted though

”This is slightly less than helpful for the British solar industry... it's absurd. Energy tax policy is going in the opposite direction to how we know energy needs to change and how it is changing.

”What he is doing is advantaging old technology and disadvantaging new ones. It's nonsensical."

But Ms Greene stressed consumers would end up paying more for their energy because of the overall downturn in the industry, which she said was also being ”shut out" of the wholesale power market.

”That is crazy because it is the cheapest and most popular source of energy. What that means is consumers are paying more. We are taking away the competitive pressure solar has put on other technologies.

”We need something to change for the solar industry. We are just trying to get a level playing field with fossil fuels."
Click to expand...

Her point is that solar isn't competitive with fossil fuels if the prices increase that much, and that forcing customers "to pay taxes like everyone else who claims to be the best solution" will kill the industry, so its a cost worth the government bearing.

And that seems totally reasonable to me. Definitely preferable than waiting for the supply of fossil fuels running so low that it becomes more expensive than solar
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
kmag said:
Like the nuclear industry?
Click to expand...

Yup, kinda.

Mindwipe said:
Fair enough if we get the government money we've spent subsidising nuclear enormously - hell, just BNFL's pension liabilities alone (which the taxpayer has had to keep afloat) are crazy.

We should work on the basis of the substantial risk to nuclear liabilities being defaulted on and state funds having to sort it out because you can't ignore nuclear cleanup too. It's happened too many times before to ignore.
Click to expand...

Yup, kinda.

TimmmV said:
She clarifies the reasons for that in the article you quoted though



Her point is that solar isn't competitive with fossil fuels if the prices increase that much, and that forcing customers "to pay taxes like everyone else who claims to be the best solution" will kill the industry, so its a cost worth the government bearing.

And that seems totally reasonable to me. Definitely preferable than waiting for the supply of fossil fuels running so low that it becomes more expensive than solar
Click to expand...

I actually *don't* have a huge problem with governments subsidising certain industries via tax breaks and adding taxes onto others (especially ones with external costs like fossil fuel burning). It was mostly just something about the whiny tone of the comments, as though they aren't just profit seeking companies like all the others and that they think they're owed a position wherein the state uses its power to benefit their shareholders. I'm probably just getting caught up on the language, though.
 
K

Kotetsu534

Member
AHA-Lambda said:
Indy support rises to 50%

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1382623-stv-poll-half-of-scots-would-vote-for-independence/
Click to expand...

Really interesting gender split there Men are 54/46 towards independence while women are 56/44 for the union (with a big tilt towards independence in deprived areas and in the young, vice versa for wealthy areas/old people). That's a massive 10-point gap - just for fun, I'd like to see poor young men's views against wealthy old women's to see how big the divide is.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-...udget-poll-puts-tories-out-of-sight-l2rq66z3v

In the aftermath of Hammond's first budget, Tories polling 44%, Labour 25%, Ukip 11%, Liberals 10%, Others 10% (presumably SNP thrashing Labour in Scotland given the rise in support for independence). Biggest lead the Tories have had over Labour since 2009, when Brown's government was falling to pieces. Delving into the details, the Tories hold an 11 point lead about C2/D/E social groups over Labour, and are approaching half the female vote (46%).
 
U

Uzzy

Member
C6pwXgaWYAASnCZ.jpg
Click to expand...

First time I've laughed at a political cartoon in ages.
 
J

JonnyDBrit

Member
Moosichu said:
Apart from referencing a popular video, with politicians in it, I don't get it. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

May, like the correspondent in the video, is trying to talk seriously and professionally but is being thoroughly embarrassed by the 'children' (her own party members and appointed cabinet) behind her.
 
M

Moosichu

Member
JonnyDBrit said:
May, like the correspondent in the video, is trying to talk seriously and professionally but is being thoroughly embarrassed by the 'children' (her own party members and appointed cabinet) behind her.
Click to expand...

Like, I understand Boris as the kid, but unless I'm completely wrong, her and Hammond are on exactly the same level.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
I've heard people say that, whilst it's not quite as acrimonious as Blair Vs Brown, #10 and #11 aren't seeing eye to eye unlike Cam and Osborne. So i think the idea is that they are May's unruly children.
 
C

cabot

Member
Government have just bailed on the self-employed NICs increase.

More worryingly, Hammond wrote a letter committing to keeping that ridiculous 'no tax rise' manifesto pledge.


Very good.
 
J

JonathanEx

Member
Awful awful awful move from the ES.

Hugely questions their independence, offensive to all the journalists on the paper, and to his constituents. But hey! Good to see a white upper class mediocre man fall upwards again with his what, fifth job?

And hey, good to know he'll use the ES as holding for his own ambitions whether it's to damage May as he still rates himself for PM, or to take on Sadiq so he can run for Mayor of London in 2020. Let's be honest, it's one of those.


However, does this mean at the Evening Standard instead of "Stop the press!" they'll now have to shout "Louise!"
 
J

jelly

Member
Mr. Sam said:
Serious question: where was this funny, charming, passionate man when he was leader? Was he pulled down by the weight of expectation?
Click to expand...

They have stupid PR teams telling him to act different for votes instead of being himself. Same reason Brown was a joke too. Don't try to be something you're not, people see right through it. Same with polices, do what you think is right not reacting to media.
 
R

Roberto Larcos

Member
Mr. Sam said:
Serious question: where was this funny, charming, passionate man when he was leader? Was he pulled down by the weight of expectation?
Click to expand...

Pulled down by the press, as much as anything. The Mail / Sun / Express were relentless, remember? They called his father a Nazi, they called him a communist, they played up the Cain and Abel angle (despite David Miliband not speaking out once), and made fun of him for eating a bacon sandwich funny.

Meanwhile Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28, George Osborne had a coke problem and a dominatrix, IDS revelled in driving people to their deaths, and Hunt literally wrote the book on NHS privatisation. Ed was squeaky clean, and they never attacked his policies - but they didn't need to.
 
J

Jackpot

Banned
Dan27 said:
Seems like it's kicking off somewhat with regards to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ot-to-link-with-unite-seize-control-of-labour
Click to expand...

That Observer piece and the accompanying OpEd were a real muddle to read. No one would accuse me of being a fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the whole article is vague aspersions that doesn't delineate between a political movement naturally wanting to expand and become more prominent and a sinister internal power struggle.

You can tell by how far down they put the quotes about the story they're writing about, and said quote is “Assuming that Len McCluskey wins the general secretaryship, which I think he will, Unite will affiliate to Momentum and will fully participate in Momentum, as will the CWU [the Communications Workers’ Union].” which is unwelcome for people who don't support them, but not exactly nefarious or unexpected.
 
A

Ashes

Banned
Sounds like a political movement being political?

This is bad for democracy in this country to have such an inept leader of the opposition. But these things can turn so quickly so who knows really.
 
Q

QuicheFontaine

Member
Dan27 said:
Hmm. Whispers of a snap election?
Click to expand...

Whereabouts?

I think it'd be a good idea really. At the moment there's no real reply to the "No mandate", "Carte blanche", "Queen Theresa" charges over how she's handling Brexit. She'd undoubtedly be returned with a larger majority so I don't see any danger from her side.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Not that it's a great source for these things, but a few journalists on Twitter. Even mentioned a date (May 4th). Obviously take it with a very big pinch of a salt, but if there was ever a time to do it....

(the real question, which is still the case, would be *how* to do it)....
 
A

Ashes

Banned
Doesn't feel like May will go for it. Like what's really the point? All the risk, and none of the glory.

All she'd hasten is Corbyn's exit. And why on earth would she want that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
7K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
  • Locked
MI5 warning over 'Chinese agent' in Parliament
News
2
819
Jose92 replied
Big Business and Government: Grand conspiracy or ramblings of a mad man?
3
1K
Soodanim replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
232K
firehawk12 replied
Jacinda Ardern is next prime minister of New Zealand (after 9 years of right wing)
2 3
114
16K
30yearsofhurt replied
Top Bottom