Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Surprised that Reform isn’t beating them in that demographic
Surprised that Reform isn’t beating them in that demographic
Fuck me, if they are losing the Daily Mail readers then they truly are fucked
Oh it's a legal wrangle, I thought these big corporations were basically able to strongarm the gov't due to their size and jobs created. I'll have to do some further reading.The whole circle jerk with the big four needs looking at. It seems whatever you do the big company lawyers manage to wriggle out of it and smaller companies get hit. Like the rest of the legal system I guess.
Hardly. Hinckley is overdue and over budget, that’s just fact and not a little bit either. EDF, the other partner in it is apparently taking a £10B hit and has pretty much said it isn’t getting involved in another project which brings you onto another issue I didn’t mention before but how likely is it that we can get someone to build it in the first place. That on its own may make Nuclear expansion untenable in the UK.
Starmer getting tied up in knots already on Sky
That's not an argument against nuclear it's an argument for updating our planning regulations and getting rid of the NIMBYism we have to deal with.The nuclear solution is overstated. Look at Hinckley Point C. Over budget and overdue. Final bill is expected to be over 4 times the original estimate. The idea was first conceived in 2010, was supposed to be completed by 2020 and now it doesn’t look like it will be finished by 2030
And even if we built at the SK costs price per Mwh it’s still more than renewable's in the UK. SK produces nuclear at about £22 per Mwh, renewables in the UK produces at between £10-20 per Mwh depending on the type of renewable. Hinckley Point C is going to produce at about £128 per Mwh. The arguments for nuclear are falling down.It’s overbudget in large part because of reactionary opposition and regulation. As I say SK builds for 1/6 of the cost.
You may be right on regulations but Hinckley is an existing nuclear site so I don’t think nimbyism was too much of a problem.That's not an argument against nuclear it's an argument for updating our planning regulations and getting rid of the NIMBYism we have to deal with.
A G7 economy should be able to build nuclear power plants and high speed rail without blinking.
No, he was just asked about flip flopping and breaking his pledges.He is being asked to account for every single penny he's going to spend in the next 5 years to be fair.
Rigby might actually make Sunak cry. Hopefully.
Not really.And even if we built at the SK costs price per Mwh it’s still more than renewable's in the UK. SK produces nuclear at about £22 per Mwh, renewables in the UK produces at between £10-20 per Mwh depending on the type of renewable. Hinckley Point C is going to produce at about £128 per Mwh. The arguments for nuclear are falling down.
Alternatively he has to herd cats leading the Labour party - so making pledges and then shifting when reality bites is the sign of a pragmatic person not an ideologue.No, he was just asked about flip flopping and breaking his pledges.
He has gone on national TV today to make the famous George Bush pledge: ‘Mark my words, no new taxes’.Alternatively he has to herd cats leading the Labour party - so making pledges and then shifting when reality bites is the sign of a pragmatic person not an ideologue.
Fuck me you don't half talk some utter shite at times.Starmer getting tied up in knots already on Sky
So, what point are you making exactly?He has gone on national TV today to make the famous George Bush pledge: ‘Mark my words, no new taxes’.
Bush couldn’t keep his promise, nor will Starmer. Not that he needed to in the first place.
And still it's like watching a car crashRigby was far softer on Sunak then Starter.
Rigby was far softer on Sunak then Starter.
That he will break his pledges to the country just as he did to the Labour membership.So, what point are you making exactly?
Rewatch the opening 10 minutes.Fuck me you don't half talk some utter shite at times.
As you are making this prediction, why do you believe Starmer will break his pledges?That he will break his pledges to the country just as he did to the Labour membership.
Did you watch/hear what he promised tonight?As you are making this prediction, why do you believe Starmer will break his pledges?
Do you think they are too ambitious, impractical? Will events make some changes inevitable? Does he have Machiavellian secret plans? Is he just insincere or incompetent?
Answer a question with a question.Did you watch/hear what he promised tonight?
So you want to know why I think someone with a history of breaking pledges might break more pledges? Particularly one that is ‘no extra taxes’?Answer a question with a question.
Okay. You are the one who needs to support the assertion that he will break his pledges. I have not suggested he will or asserted that he won't.
Take all taxes of fuels and VED and do road pricing / cost per mile.What do you do about super heavy electric cars damaging the roads though? It’s not all anti pollution it has to fix potholes and stuff to.
His track record on making pledges and sticking to them isn't great to say the least. Surely you can see why that would lead people to be less than certain he is going to stick to any pledges he gives now.Answer a question with a question.
Okay. You are the one who needs to support the assertion that he will break his pledges. I have not suggested he will or asserted that he won't.
Tax fuel for lesuire boats, yachts etc, at the same rate as for road vehicles.Carbon tax would surely work for this. Perhaps with a modifier for altitude as I understand that’s what makes aviation particularly nasty.
Not if you don't wish to explain. Up to you. Maybe you already have.So you want to know why I think someone with a history of breaking pledges might break more pledges? Particularly one that is ‘no extra taxes’?
Ok. He has pledged at most modest tax increases in a limited number of areas, while also pledging higher spending and investment while fixing serious societal problems.Not if you don't wish to explain. Up to you. Maybe you already have.
No politician except an ideologue or a time traveller can keep all their pledges. Perhaps they should only make vague broad brush outlines. Don't think that would suffice.
Let’s not give the Arabs another source of income to put in to Man. City and Newcastle,Not read anything along those lines. Regardless the long term energy security for Europe and Africa lies in the desert in my view, but it would require investment and collaboration on a scale that will never happen with the Western governments that keep getting elected.
To be fair that has a lot of wiggle room.He has gone on national TV today to make the famous George Bush pledge: ‘Mark my words, no new taxes’.
Bush couldn’t keep his promise, nor will Starmer. Not that he needed to in the first place.
Teh super rich would just live elsewhere in that scenario, as they did under Wilson.I know this might sound a bit mad, but I think we may well be at a point whereby things like tax bands and to an extent tax rates should be sorted from the data/stats, rather than being used as much as a political football.
One of the main points of tax is to redistribute wealth by taking from those with a lot to provide services for those at the bottom who can't afford them.
So if you have the info on income levels, you could look at, say, the 50th percentile and the top 10% and work out the difference and however many times more the earnings are at the 90th percentile is some sort of multiplier for the upper tax rate, and also sets the income level at which it is paid. If society is fairer then that upper rate will automatically be low. If we have a huge discrepancy it will be large. It automatically reflects the society we're living in.
Tax free personal allowance should be set at the amount people need to pay rent/mortgage, bills and food. Then you can see what percentile that relates to and maybe work out a basic rate from that as well. Plus should you choose you can add in further tax bands based on percentiles, for example a super rich tax on the top 1% compared to what they have over the top 10%.
I know this doesn't cover the big issue of accumulated wealth (I think something along the lines of treating inheritance as income rather than a separate IHT could be a possibility), but would need access to all the data (and a lot of free time!) to turn it into a detailed, potentially workable solution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?