Off Topic Politics Thread

Mrs No7 reckons I cost us £100s a year in heating for this very reason. In the Winter shorts in the house all the time (unfortunately, when I go out I have to wear long trousers), and in the Summer it is a bit of a novelty to have to wear long trousers at all.

I am probably spoilt as been WFH so long, but I would really struggle now (and probably wouldn't work for the company) if I did more than the odd 'meeting day' in the office.

 

Cabinet Ministers are, allegedly, looking at a scheme to charge car owners a pay as you go fee for miles travelled over 5000.
Miles travelled up to 5000 would incur no cost.
A figure being mooted is 16p a mile which, if my maths are right, would cost someone travelling 10000 miles £800 in fees.
This is aimed at making up for the expected loss to the Treasury finances as a result of lost fuel duty as car owners switch to electric cars.
The idea has been put forward by a Social Market Foundation think tank that recommends “road charging”.
Data would be collated by a “dashboard gadget”.
They wouldn’t, would they?

 

So another tax implemented by the conservatives. Cool cool

 

As an Electric car owner, I keep saying that the govt (any) will need to get back the lost revenue somehow. Currently I pay zero road tax, congestion charge and can fill up my car for free at Tesco or any Pod Point location. It won't go on and would be naive for me to think so.

A cost/mile in place of any other tax (road, fuel surcharge etc) IMO is the fairest way to keep the roads in order as those that 'wear them out' pay a bit more - though it should be INSTEAD of any other tax, not as well as IMO.

 

I get what you are saying, but there are plenty of people who must use their vehicles for work, such as carers and delivery people who don’t earn a decent wage.
They shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of those who earn more but use the cars less because of their job situation.
With the wrong approach we would be penalising low earners, again, who could be forced into cutting out social trips because of the additional costs of travel.
At least at the moment people know the cost of travel when they fill up and can budget for journeys, rather than get a random bill that they may or may not be able to pay.

 

I do disagree here. Earnings are not relevant to the reason for the tax.

The ‘tax’ is to repair and upkeep the roads and damage caused by cars/lorries on them. It doesn’t matter how much you earn, if you do 50,000 miles a year you will cause more damage to the roads than someone doing 5,000.

Surely that is fairer than “you earn more you can afford it even if you only do 5,000 miles a year” ?

This tax is the same as saying you receive more pounds than your neighbour in earnings so you pay more tax?

Higher earners will always be less affected than lower earners relative to their disposable income with any tax and the only way to make it ‘fair’ is to set a national wage that everyone earns whatever their job is?


EDIT: Just reread your post and you did say "with the wrong approach". My response ignored that entirely. I agree with that - you could have a 20% tax payer paying x amount per mile over 5000 and a 40% y amount and so on. That is fairer, and unfortunately something I don't think this government would do.

 

You're spot on here. I know some local councils are already looking at electric vehicles and ways to implement variable parking permit charges. Right now many councils have differential charges based on a petrol car's CO2 emissions (and often have a diesel surcharge) while many councils offer cheap parking permits for electric vehicles to encourage uptake. I know at least one councillor in London has asked why someone who owns an expensive electric Porsche pays a fraction of the price for a permit that someone who can only afford a cheap old banger pays. I'm not sure there's any obvious way to do that for EVs but people are looking at it. I have no doubt central government are thinking along similar lines.

 

Johnson and Rees-Mogg!!

 

Lies, lies, lies.

 

The trouble is, the tax isn't used exclusively for road upkeep, it just goes in the general taxation pot. If it was directed and put back into road infrastructure, then it seems fair to charge people who do more miles. It's just another tax otherwise, that will disproportionately affect low earners, as per usual.

 

The issue of loss revenue from electric vehicles has been debate for a really long period now. I think we have reached a point where alot of people will no longer need to work from an office. It will be a double-whammy and you could envisage a future where the roads are largely unused as was the case during the first lockdown. I rarely travelled to work in 2020 but can still recall the shock of driving through Winnall at rush hour without stopping. I still think that the travel jams are far less severe there than they had been pre-pandemic. Makes you wonder if the mess they are making near Badger Farm in preparation for the Winnall upgrade will ultimately be worth it.

 

Just want to bring to everyone’s attention that the World Economic Forum is currently meeting

A gathering of the biggest mostly unelected parasitical hypocrites that gather together to discuss how they can use their wealth to shape global politics.

The fact this forum exists is a moral outrage and should be a bigger talking point imo. (And would be if the attendees didn’t own most of the mainstream media)

 

Jeffrey Epstein used to attend this forum. Maybe he was the entertainments manager.

 

Reading that Sunak will be meeting with Johnson to discuss windfall taxes etc, with announcements to be made the day after the Sue Gray report is released.
What a coincidence.

 

If the trying to distract from the bad press of the Sue Gray report is what it takes for them to actually do something about the cost of living crisis then I can’t be too angry

Boris seems ultimately to be dead in the water regardless. It is a matter of when rather than if. There are surely worse pictures out there that can be dumped during an election campaign (or just before)

I also can’t see how Sunak recovers from this. He will basically need to propose something more generous that what labour is even musing about. Harsher tax, more direct payments to people etc.
I just don’t see it. Now maybe him doing something recovers his reputation with conservatives. But those aren’t really who you need to win over in an election

All this could be why they haven’t done much so far - they think it won’t do much good and only harm (torch their reputation with the “base”)

 

‘I am humbled’

‘SIR BEER KORMA’

 

I wonder if anyone else finds th MoD's morning briefings regarding the perfomance of rhe Russian military troubling? I do not think that they are necessary but also find them to be provocative. It strikes me as Palmerstonian sabre-rattling of the worst kind and just a littles smug given that the performance of the British army has been debatable in Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent past. Naval interference in the Black Sea must be considered a last resort.

On top of this, Liz Truss's tones are also increasingly aggresive and seem aimed at confronting Russia on a wider front. The situation in Africa is now being mooted. I am not sure where this is headed but I think the kind of comments she is making underscores the confusion as to what NATO's role is. It certainly is not defensive and I just feel that with Truss in charge of foreign policy this could quickly get out of control. It is wrong that the Russians are meddling in Africa albeit this is certainly not on the scale of what the Chinese have been doing for years which is even more pernicious than what the British Empire did. In the end, any involvement by Russia will be likely to backfire of it's own accord and what NATO does not want to be doing is opening another front on another continent.

I would prefer that we maintain the sanctions against Russia and not become involved in any military action and am still on the fence as to whether the supply of weapons to Ukraine is ultimately the correct decision. I feel that the economic isolation alone will ultimately bring down Putin just as a Russian embargo of fuel and grain imports will have a negative effect on the global economy. Conflict is in no one's interest and the jingoistic rhetoric by all parties has no role in trying to find a solution.

There does not seem to be much concern in the UK as to how the Russian conflict in the Ukraine could escalate. I do not believe we should appease Putin yet, at the same time, the message put out by the West and NATO clearly sees any satisfactory solution to involve the humiliation of Russia. Without doubt the Russia assault in Ukraine is one of the most ridiculous and costly mistakes made in Europe since the Nazis invaded Russia and cannot be condoned in any circumstances. By contrast, I think the West has been extremely poor in how it has managed Putin and it blinkered in the fact that it has similarly failed to recognise that NATO aggrandisement has been central to why this has happened. I cannot believe that the public has not really made much of a stand against military action by all parties. Stop the War has effectively been villanised and it is only this week that some trade unions such as the PCS have correctly voted to recognise in their conference that NATO is not a defensive alliance and that it is aggressive and perhaps "imperialist" too. It does worry me that we are effectively in a proxy war with Russia and yet I am not aware that this either has the full approval of parliament or has been properly debated. Certainly the position taken by Starmer has stiffled all debate on this matter by the opposition.

I find Johnson and Truss both to be extremely reckless and, in these circumstances, they are wholly the wrong kind of individuals to be place in such authority during a period of such heightened tensions. We would have had a more mature and sensible response had Corbyn been PM.

 

Someone should restrain Liz Truss for her own good (and ours).

 

Sorry Ian, but I cannot agree with any of that.

Russia did not invade because of NATO.

They did not line up a puppet president for the moment when they took Kyiv because of NATO.

They did not shoot civilians in the street because of NATO.

They did not forceably abduct thousands of civilians because of NATO.

They are not attempting to annex part of southern Ukraine because of NATO.

They did these things because they do not believe that Ukraine has any right to self-determination. Full stop.