1 hour ago, robtheplod said:

All very good points - I like them! 

 

.... but what i can't get is the 'frequent flyer levy', so aimed at rich people who take lots of holidays..... this does not help the environment, but raises tax revenue....  surely to stop pollution you need to stop the cause? 

 

on the whole I've been pleasantly surprised, thanks!!

Charging people money for driving into ulez zones stops the pollution, the charge magics away the pollution. Obvious or else why would it be done 😉

9 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

If fewer people want to fly. there will be fewer flights, and less carbon emitted to the atmosphere.

 

Not none.

 

Too many flights are not just a "rich people" issue, they're also an issue for "normal people" who think that flying off to Prague for a boozy weekend is a good idea because the saving on beer exceeds the cost of the flight -- or that flying long-distance for a holiday makes the same sense when hotel/food/drink costs are included.

 

Flights should just plain be more expensive to reflect their environmental impact and discourage people from using them except when essential -- or if they do use them for pleasure, they pay a more realistic cost. This used to be the case until the era of cheap flights massively increased their number -- and CO2 emissions, which nobody cared about at the time.

 

A sensible tax on aviation fuel to reflect this would be a good start but will be strongly resisted by the aviation and fossil fuel lobbies, for obvious reasons... 😞 

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

A sensible tax on aviation fuel to reflect this would be a good start but will be strongly resisted by the aviation and fossil fuel lobbies, for obvious reasons... 😞 

Which is why they have been making sure to buy the politicians to ensure it doesn't happen, including the Brexit Party. This is from five years ago, but it is doubtless still going on.

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2019/12/huge-sums-of-money-have-been-paid-to-political-parties-by-donors-associated-with-aviation-industry-most-to-brexit-party-and-conservatives/

 

One of the problems with an aviation fuel tax is that for a small country like Britain to go it alone, the planes just end up filling the tanks elsewhere. It is something that needs a multinational approach to tackle.

Just now, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Which is why they have been making sure to buy the politicians to ensure it doesn't happen, including the Brexit Party. This is from five years ago, but it is doubtless still going on.

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2019/12/huge-sums-of-money-have-been-paid-to-political-parties-by-donors-associated-with-aviation-industry-most-to-brexit-party-and-conservatives/

I wonder how much they gave to Labour?

 

If they didn't they might regret it... 😉 

 

(though of course one country introducing such a tax might prove difficult and expensive, it really needs concerted action which is unlikely...)

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

I wonder how much they gave to Labour?

 

If they didn't they might regret it... 😉 

 

(though of course one country introducing such a tax might prove difficult and expensive, it really needs concerted action which is unlikely...)

See my edit. It needs to be multinational. A plane that avoids filling the tanks in an aviation fuel tax country will be carrying more weight of fuel and thus burning even more to get in to the sky.

Just now, Jen-in-Wellies said:

See my edit. It needs to be multinational. A plane that avoids filling the tanks in an aviation fuel tax country will be carrying more weight of fuel and thus burning even more to get in to the sky.

Absolutely. But my point was that people calling for rich fliers to be taxed is a major pot and kettle problem, because though individually they are responsible for far more flights/emissions they're vastly outnumbered by "normal" people who contribute more aviation emissions in total (though less per head) -- who are of course the ones calling for the rich fliers to be taxed, while ignoring their own flights...

2 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

See my edit. It needs to be multinational. A plane that avoids filling the tanks in an aviation fuel tax country will be carrying more weight of fuel and thus burning even more to get in to the sky.

 

So if the UK did put tax on aviation fuel and the airlines refuel elsewhere I can see no reason why a weight based landing and take off tax could not be imposed based on a typical weight for the planned flight, anything over that attracts even higher taxes/fees.

 

Pie in the sky, naturally.

17 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Charging people money for driving into ulez zones stops the pollution, the charge magics away the pollution. Obvious or else why would it be done 😉

Stops people going is what it achieves 

Nobody has yet come back with reasons to vote Labour or Conservative...... come on, there must be stalwart candidates out there ready to push their beloved policies? 

10 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Stops people going is what it achieves 

Which is of course the entire point... 😉 

 

Anyway it doesn't *stop* them, it *discourages* them -- and extracts money from them if they do, which helps underfunded councils.

 

Unlike you I live inside the London ULEZ zone and have several friends with old vehicles who end up paying the charge -- the result is they try and avoid travelling into it as often. But they understand the reasoning behind it, and agree that it's reducing pollution significantly -- again, which is the entire point of it -- while also grumbling about having to pay.

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

Just now, robtheplod said:

Nobody has yet come back with reasons to vote Labour or Conservative...... come on, there must be stalwart candidates out there ready to push their beloved policies? 

 

Reason to vote Labour: to be rid of the conservatives. Does anyone really need another reason?

 

 

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Absolutely. But my point was that people calling for rich fliers to be taxed is a major pot and kettle problem, because though individually they are responsible for far more flights/emissions they're vastly outnumbered by "normal" people who contribute more aviation emissions in total (though less per head) -- who are of course the ones calling for the rich fliers to be taxed, while ignoring their own flights...

There is some evidence that a minority of people are contributing a significant chunk of the flight seats being filled.

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/, fact checking a claim that 15% of people take 70% of flights. Basically upheld, if this is for domestic, European and long haul flights in total. A disincentive to take many flights for a person would make a significant difference. I am guessing that a lot of these flights are going to be business related, so a heavy tax would push businesses in to altering the way they fly. For example, in a job around 20 years ago, some of our equipment was serviced by two people, who covered much of Europe and were flying several times a week each. This is something that needs hands on participation and not possible remotely, so it would need some thinking on how to reduce the flight tax burden for the company.

1 minute ago, robtheplod said:

Nobody has yet come back with reasons to vote Labour or Conservative...... come on, there must be stalwart candidates out there ready to push their beloved policies? 

Vote Labour because this will get the Conservatives out.

...... so not quite a ringing endorsement of policies... just keeps the less crap alternative out...... that wont go well on the doorstep? 

4 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

...... so not quite a ringing endorsement of policies... just keeps the less crap alternative out...... that wont go well on the doorstep? 

I think it's the fundamental reason behind the predicted massive rise in Labour seats and the equally massive fall in Tory ones.

 

Anything But Tory. No other reason is needed... 😉 

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

Just now, robtheplod said:

...... so not quite a ringing endorsement of policies... just keeps the less crap alternative out...... that wont go well on the doorstep? 

It's a problem for Labour. In order not to give the Tories any attack points, they have made their policies almost indistinguishable. Makes it hard to drum up any enthusiasm. The minimum we will get are Tory policies, put in place by people with red rosettes, instead of blue. Getting rid of the current bunch of chancers is nice and I am looking forward to the multiple Michael Portillo moments in the early hours of July 5th, but don't hold any illusions about Labour making any difference over the next few years. Not worse than is the best we can hope for.

Just now, Jen-in-Wellies said:

It's a problem for Labour. In order not to give the Tories any attack points, they have made their policies almost indistinguishable. Makes it hard to drum up any enthusiasm. The minimum we will get are Tory policies, put in place by people with red rosettes, instead of blue. Getting rid of the current bunch of chancers is nice and I am looking forward to the multiple Michael Portillo moments in the early hours of July 5th, but don't hold any illusions about Labour making any difference over the next few years. Not worse than is the best we can hope for.

I expect Labour will make some improvements, but without a fundamental change in policies -- especially regarding borrowing to invest in infrastructure -- it won't be easy for them to make big differences... 😞 

9 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

Nobody has yet come back with reasons to vote Labour or Conservative...... come on, there must be stalwart candidates out there ready to push their beloved policies? 

A Labour government set up the NHS.

My mother was looked after by the NHS while carrying me.

I was born in an NHS hospital.

I went to state schools.

I went to university on a grant.

All my life chances are thanks to Labour administrations.

 

Will that do you?

1 minute ago, IanD said:

I expect Labour will make some improvements, but without a fundamental change in policies -- especially regarding borrowing to invest in infrastructure -- it won't be easy for them to make big differences... 😞 

One view is that Labour will do completely different things when in power and then speculate what those nice things will be. I'm not convinced that lying to your electorate to get elected is a way to engender trust in a politician. We already know what Sir Keith will lie to get elected, as he did it to the party membership to win the leadership.

Just now, Victor Vectis said:

A Labour government set up the NHS.

My mother was looked after by the NHS while carrying me.

I was born in an NHS hospital.

I went to state schools.

I went to university on a grant.

All my life chances are thanks to Labour administrations.

 

Will that do you?

Unfortunately that was Labour then, not Labour now who will be coming into power inheriting an almighty mess, and having backed themselves into a corner about how to fix it by being scared to propose any non-Tory-lite policies in case this lost them the election after being savaged by the Tories and their bootlicking press... 😞 

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

I expect Labour will make some improvements, but without a fundamental change in policies -- especially regarding borrowing to invest in infrastructure -- it won't be easy for them to make big differences... 😞 

And taxing rich people, like tory supporting newspaper owners. Equalising capital gains and income tax is such an obvious one. Actually making work pay, rather than assets.

8 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

One view is that Labour will do completely different things when in power and then speculate what those nice things will be. I'm not convinced that lying to your electorate to get elected is a way to engender trust in a politician. We already know what Sir Keith will lie to get elected, as he did it to the party membership to win the leadership.

I'm not sure Labour have lied, they've tried to avoid saying anything or adopting any controversial (Socialist!) policies which would have got them monstered by the right-wing press.

 

I'd rather have Labour do this and actually win the election than put forward Corbyn-style policies and lose it.

 

Once they're in things will undoubtedly change, especially when they find out more of the horrible truth about what a mess we're in after 14 years of asset-stripping Tory rule... 😞 

 

4 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

And taxing rich people, like tory supporting newspaper owners.

Once they're in it doesn't matter how much noise those rich newspaper owners make, they're going to get clobbered -- non-dom and capital gains tax are the obvious starting points, but I'm sure there will be others. And about time... 😉 

 

And if I end up paying more tax as a result, so be it -- it's what pays for the NHS and social services and all the other things that glue society together.

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

..... and people wonder why people are looking at the alternatives such as Reform......

3 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

..... and people wonder why people are looking at the alternatives such as Reform......

If you believe a single word that Reform say, I have a bridge you might want to buy... 😉 

 

Funnily enough, the polls say that most people want better public services not tax cuts. Might just possible explain the predicted numbers of MPs after the GE... 🙂 

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'd rather have Labour do this and actually win the election than put forward Corbyn-style policies and lose it.

Corbyn's policies were popular enough to lose the Tories their majority in 2017. This was under the Truss regime, a paragon of probity and common sense, compared with the subsequent bunch of chancers under Johnson, the lettuce and Rish!. Labour lost 2019 for many reasons, Brexit, Starmer's push for a second referendum, the monstering of Corbyn by the press, but not the policies.

Right now, with the Tories as discredited as they are, Labour could put forward any policies they want and still likely win, so the choice of a Tory Lite manifesto is just that, a choice they made.