1 minute ago, IanD said:

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... 🙂 

this is the point... to me and i suspect many, there isn't anything in it when it comes to trust between all parties, so people and myself are asking, why the hell not??   the conservatives have failed after 14 years, labour are popular as people dont like the conservatives..... so little choice..... I know all on here slate Reform, but they are only about due to failure of the other two - they shouldn't be needed! 

10 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

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.

It is, because they're terrified of losing again if they put forward more proper Labour-style policies -- which has happened before several times.

 

You might think they could have got away with more radical policies and you might well be right -- but if you were wrong we'd have the Tories back in again... 😞 

 

I don't blame Labour for playing it safe so they don't present anything for the Tories and their supporters to attack.

 

Once they're in power, like any government ever elected they can change their policies. After all, the Tories have done this *loads* of times... 😉 

 

31 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'm sure some will reply with "Experts, we don't need no steeeeenking experts..." -- but here's a reason to vote Labour for you 🙂 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/19/labour-plan-end-economic-stagnation-uk-economists

 

"Labour’s plans for ending Britain’s long-term economic stagnation have been backed by a group of leading economists, including three Nobel prize winners and a former Bank of England deputy governor.

In a boost to the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, the 16 UK and internationally based economists said change was “desperately needed” after the policy mistakes and failures of the past 14 years since the Conservatives took power.

 

Reeves and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, have been accused by the Conservatives of having no plan for the economy but, in a letter to the Guardian, the economists say Labour offers a “credible alternative”.

The letter’s signatories include the Nobel prize winners Joe Stiglitz, Sir Christopher Pissarides and Sir Angus Deaton, as well as Sir Charles Bean, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England."

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

Once they're in power, like any government ever elected they can change their policies. After all, the Tories have done this *loads* of times... 😉 

Too true. I don't recall any mention of crippling austerity in the 2010 Tory manifesto. Just hugging huskies from that nice Mr Cameron. Not to mention what the Lib Dems backtracked on to get their coalition.

 

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

It is, because they're terrified of losing again if they put forward more proper Labour-style policies -- which has happened before several times.

If Labour can't win on Labour policies, then they haven't been able to convince people. That should be democracy. Having only policies that are approved of by a few media owning billionaires isn't democracy, but it is what we have. Having Tory policies makes them Tories, regardless of what colour their rosette is. You just end up with different people fronting the operation, but the racket remains the same and people turning to charlatans like Farage, who promise something different that they have no chances of delivering, just because it isn't the same old.

This election, with its loathing of the Conservative party was an unusual chance for actual change, but Labour have blown it.

 

1 minute ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Too true. I don't recall any mention of crippling austerity in the 2010 Tory manifesto. Just hugging huskies from that nice Mr Cameron. Not to mention what the Lib Dems backtracked on to get their coalition.

 

If Labour can't win on Labour policies, then they haven't been able to convince people. That should be democracy. Having only policies that are approved of by a few media owning billionaires isn't democracy, but it is what we have. Having Tory policies makes them Tories, regardless of what colour their rosette is. You just end up with different people fronting the operation, but the racket remains the same and people turning to charlatans like Farage, who promise something different that they have no chances of delivering, just because it isn't the same old.

 

 

Your last paragraph sums up the problem -- Labour being honest about policies only works if those policies are honestly reported so that people understand them. And that's one reason they've been out of power for so long. Unfortunately we have to deal with the world we live in where press and Tory lies rule the roost, not the one we wished we lived in... 😞 

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Your last paragraph sums up the problem -- Labour being honest about policies only works if those policies are honestly reported so that people understand them. And that's one reason they've been out of power for so long. Unfortunately we have to deal with the world we live in where press and Tory lies rule the roost, not the one we wished we lived in... 😞 

It's where we differ. Working within that system, or trying to change it.

17 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

It's where we differ. Working within that system, or trying to change it.

You can't change it if you're in opposition, where Labour have been for the last 14 years... 😞 

 

Either way, I don't think we differ in where we'd like the UK to go, which is what matters 🙂 

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

You can't change it if you're in opposition, where Labour have been for the last 14 years... 😞 

 

Farage's political career and every successful protest campaign proves you can make a difference when not in power. Farage has succeeded in turning the Tory Party to embrace a lot of his less goosestepping views over the last three decades, despite never becoming an MP as of yet. An actual opposition, makes alternative ideas part of the conversation, rather than just variations on how mean we should be to immigrants. Labour have consistently abstained over the more nasty Tory stuff over the last four years, rather than voting against.

 

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Either way, I don't think we differ in where we'd like the UK to go, which is what matters 🙂 

Yup. 😀

6 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Farage's political career and every successful protest campaign proves you can make a difference when not in power. Farage has succeeded in turning the Tory Party to embrace a lot of his less goosestepping views over the last three decades, despite never becoming an MP as of yet. An actual opposition, makes alternative ideas part of the conversation, rather than just variations on how mean we should be to immigrants. Labour have consistently abstained over the more nasty Tory stuff over the last four years, rather than voting against.

 

Yup. 😀

 

Yes they have, because every time they vote against Tory nastiness the right-wing press -- which still has a *lot* of clout -- comes down on them like a ton of Tory bricks and distorts or lies about what they say... 😞 

 

I expect that when Labour are elected with a *massive* majority (and the Tories are consigned to oblivion) they'll be able to put forward policies whether the right-wing press like them or not, on the basis that they have a mandate for "Change".

 

Mind you, said press will undoubtedly scream "Labour liars, this wasn't in your pre-election manifesto!!!". Let's hope Labour have enough backbone to ignore them and do the right things, not what keeps the right-wing press happy... 😉 

1 hour 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...

I understand that there is a very strong 80/20 factor in flights - that 80% of the flying is done by 20% of the people who fly. It makes a deal of sense to tax frequent flying on a sliding scale to incentivise the 20% to seek alternatives. 

I think it is a good approach that the tax rises with number of flights. 

As an example, business flights can and should be replaced by zoom style meetings. And the whole 'flying off for the weekend' taking advantage of ridiculously low subsidised prices is something that should be eased out of the market.

In many cases, the estimations for such fights are already trying to discourage tourism because of the negative impacts on local populations. 

14 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

I understand that there is a very strong 80/20 factor in flights - that 80% of the flying is done by 20% of the people who fly. It makes a deal of sense to tax frequent flying on a sliding scale to incentivise the 20% to seek alternatives. 

I think it is a good approach that the tax rises with number of flights. 

As an example, business flights can and should be replaced by zoom style meetings. And the whole 'flying off for the weekend' taking advantage of ridiculously low subsidised prices is something that should be eased out of the market.

In many cases, the estimations for such fights are already trying to discourage tourism because of the negative impacts on local populations. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779

 

The most frequent 10% of flyers (high-fliers?) are estimated to account for something like 40% of flights -- which means the other 90% (including occasional fliers) account for 60%.

 

This means that as far as total emissions are concerned it looks like "rich" people are responsible for far more per head, but "normal" people are responsible for more total emissions because there are so many more of them.

 

So we need to discourage both from flying -- the rich because every one of them is bad for the planet, and normal people because all of them added together are bad for the planet. A steep frequent-flyer tax will discourage the rich -- especially if taxes on private planes are massive -- and frequent "frivolous flyers" but all flights need to cost more to pay for the emissions and discourage flying generally.

 

(we use Zoom/Webex meetings far more now than before the pandemic, sometimes it's still necessary to meet face-to-face but I guess these have dropped by at least 3x)

 

Just blaming the rich might make "normal" people feel good, but they are to blame too... 😉 

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779

 

The most frequent 10% of flyers (high-fliers?) are estimated to account for something like 40% of flights -- which means the other 90% (including occasional fliers) account for 60%.

 

This means that as far as total emissions are concerned it looks like "rich" people are responsible for far more per head, but "normal" people are responsible for more total emissions because there are so many more of them.

 

So we need to discourage both from flying -- the rich because every one of them is bad for the planet, and normal people because all of them added together are bad for the planet. A steep frequent-flyer tax will discourage the rich -- especially if taxes on private planes are massive -- and frequent "frivolous flyers" but all flights need to cost more to pay for the emissions and discourage flying generally.

 

(we use Zoom/Webex meetings far more now than before the pandemic, sometimes it's still necessary to meet face-to-face but I guess these have dropped by at least 3x)

 

Just blaming the rich might make "normal" people feel good, but they are to blame too... 😉 

We flew this year, for the first time in 10 years, but we still felt guilty about it. The alternatives would have been more expensive, complicated and take days instead of a day.

2 hours ago, robtheplod said:

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

Your point being............?

42 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

We flew this year, for the first time in 10 years, but we still felt guilty about it. The alternatives would have been more expensive, complicated and take days instead of a day.

 

Flights are the only sensible way to travel long distances when you have to do this, but -- in my view -- this should only be done when you have a good reason for doing it. Flying to visit distant relatives occasionally, yes -- especially if there's no other sensible way to get there, no need to feel guilty. Flying to somewhere where booze is cheap for a stag/hen weekend, no, pile on the guilt. Anything in between -- well, that's up to your conscience, but just be aware of how environmentally unfriendly flying is, *especially* long-distance.

 

But in all cases you should expect to pay more in the future than today, because flying has the biggest environmental impact and pays the lowest CO2 taxes of any method of transport, and is going to be the hardest to make "green".

 

(at least, until short-haul flights go electric, which may not be that far away)

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

3 hours ago, peterboat said:

Stops people going is what it achieves 

If only that were true. The skint little man on his old Honda fifty with no other way of getting to work has to pay. The millionaire in his new Bentley doesn't have to pay.

4 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

If only that were true. The skint little man on his old Honda fifty with no other way of getting to work has to pay. The millionaire in his new Bentley doesn't have to pay.

A honda 50 is exempt because it's a classic 

1 hour ago, IanD said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779

 

The most frequent 10% of flyers (high-fliers?) are estimated to account for something like 40% of flights -- which means the other 90% (including occasional fliers) account for 60%.

 

This means that as far as total emissions are concerned it looks like "rich" people are responsible for far more per head, but "normal" people are responsible for more total emissions because there are so many more of them.

 

So we need to discourage both from flying -- the rich because every one of them is bad for the planet, and normal people because all of them added together are bad for the planet. A steep frequent-flyer tax will discourage the rich -- especially if taxes on private planes are massive -- and frequent "frivolous flyers" but all flights need to cost more to pay for the emissions and discourage flying generally.

 

(we use Zoom/Webex meetings far more now than before the pandemic, sometimes it's still necessary to meet face-to-face but I guess these have dropped by at least 3x)

 

Just blaming the rich might make "normal" people feel good, but they are to blame too... 😉 

I find not having a passport has cured my flying emissions 

Just now, peterboat said:

A honda 50 is exempt because it's a classic 

Maybe it's a poor example but facts are a skint bloke with an old car has to pay and millionaire doesn't in his fancy modern car. Utter nonsense and cannot be right. 

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Maybe it's a poor example but facts are a skint bloke with an old car has to pay and millionaire doesn't in his fancy modern car. Utter nonsense and cannot be right. 

Tim its life, I use my bus and tram pass rather than the car, means I can have a drink if I fancy and saves hassle in all honesty 

39 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Maybe it's a poor example but facts are a skint bloke with an old car has to pay and millionaire doesn't in his fancy modern car. Utter nonsense and cannot be right. 

Careful there mate, you're sounding a touch socialist there

 

 

37 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Tim its life, I use my bus and tram pass rather than the car, means I can have a drink if I fancy and saves hassle in all honesty 

But the skint young bloke trying to make a living and get to work has no recourse to a bus pass and public transport is probably impossible. He gets penalised getting to work whilst boss on good wages with new car doesn't, that is madness. I was driving when you rang old boy 👍

Just now, mrsmelly said:

But the skint young bloke trying to make a living and get to work has no recourse to a bus pass and public transport is probably impossible. He gets penalised getting to work whilst boss on good wages with new car doesn't, that is madness. I was driving when you rang old boy 👍

 

Come the revolution comrade 

 

2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Careful there mate, you're sounding a touch socialist there

 

 

I just think ulez is a crap scheme which helps the well off and shits on the skint person.

3 hours 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? 

A interesting one for you, the other week I forwarded something to my MP and prospective MPs, only my Tory MP and Lib dems has replied. Lee always replies so no surprise there but labour and the rest have just gone into the dustbin! Jayne had the prospective labour candidate on the doorstep and asked her why she hadn't replied, no answer was the deafining answer! We had this same issue before Lee won, why would we want an MP that doesn't listen? To be fair Ross the liberal candidate was a nice guy, local and if I didn't know Lee I would have voted for him

13 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

But the skint young bloke trying to make a living and get to work has no recourse to a bus pass and public transport is probably impossible. He gets penalised getting to work whilst boss on good wages with new car doesn't, that is madness. I was driving when you rang old boy 👍

Look Tim the reason we have ULEZs is because Client earth took the government to court twice over air quality in towns and cities.  The supreme court ruled in there favour, so by law the government had to do something, so they handed a pot of money to the offending local governments and said you sort it which they did. It doesn't matter if you are skint the vehicle that you are driving is causing dangerous air quality so it pays to pollute, which encourages it to be changed. Given that a compliant petrol car can be ancient its easy to comply. However most want a shitty diesel so they pay to pollute, not the government's fault its Client earth and the council's but they have no choice in the matter. 

15 minutes ago, peterboat said:

A interesting one for you, the other week I forwarded something to my MP and prospective MPs, only my Tory MP and Lib dems has replied. Lee always replies so no surprise there but labour and the rest have just gone into the dustbin! Jayne had the prospective labour candidate on the doorstep and asked her why she hadn't replied, no answer was the deafining answer! We had this same issue before Lee won, why would we want an MP that doesn't listen? To be fair Ross the liberal candidate was a nice guy, local and if I didn't know Lee I would have voted for him

Look Tim the reason we have ULEZs is because Client earth took the government to court twice over air quality in towns and cities.  The supreme court ruled in there favour, so by law the government had to do something, so they handed a pot of money to the offending local governments and said you sort it which they did. It doesn't matter if you are skint the vehicle that you are driving is causing dangerous air quality so it pays to pollute, which encourages it to be changed. Given that a compliant petrol car can be ancient its easy to comply. However most want a shitty diesel so they pay to pollute, not the government's fault its Client earth and the council's but they have no choice in the matter. 

 

Since the reduction in PM2.5 pollution from ULEZs is likely to mean several thousand fewer deaths per year in the UK, it seems this was a good choice...

 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/oct/uk-air-pollution-regulations-will-reduce-deaths-do-little-protect-ecosystems

 

It's only come to light in recent years just how bad PM2.5 are for health and how many hidden deaths they cause -- ULEZ zones are one result of this, and bans on woodburners are another since these now contribute a similar amount to traffic (mainly diesels).

Edited June 20, 20242 yr by IanD

44 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I just think ulez is a crap scheme which helps the well off and shits on the skint person.

Rather than looking at it as some 'net zero' issue, how about looking at it in the same way as the introduction of 'smokeless zones' in our cities following the famous coal fired smogs that were blighting people's lives in the 1950's? The air pollution in our cities is already killing people (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56801794), how many do you think it ought to kill before we do anything about it?

42 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I just think ulez is a crap scheme which helps the well off and shits on the skint person.

But, by your own admission, you don't go to London, and ULEZ schemes dont affect you at all do they?

I live in London. I've lived here since 1976. I cycle in London, as a commuter, and as a primary means of transport. 

Air quality used to be so bad I'd have black snot. Meanwhile asthma rates have rocketed. It's a public health issue and it has to be addressed. 

Today, as a direct result of clean air policies our air is miles better. People live longer, healthier lives. 

The only cars that are being penalised are very old, stinkpots. They shouldn't be on the road and I object to my council tax subsidising these foul vehicles. 

These vehicle account for a very small percentage of road use, and a huge percentage of filthy toxic fumes. 

You could do the research if you bothered.

Mostly they are trade vehicles. Decrepit white vans being the prime example. Their owners can and should upgrade, and pass the costs on in their business. 

A compliant vehicle can be purchased for under £1k.