UKMT October - Papers please. Theresa May Edition.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT October - Papers please. Theresa May Edition.

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

TinTower posted:

Even so, that tax break is going to be much more valuable to those on lower incomes than higher incomes. Taxing money that you have to get by law just allows a flashy minimum wage rate that doesn't actually reflect reality (like Miliband's �8/hr rate which is actually lower than inflation-linked estimates). Something like 16% of the Living Wage is actually taxation. And even at the most pessimistic estimates, bringing back the 50p tax rate would easily pay for a tax threshold linked to NMW.

OK, yes, an increase in the personal allowance could be revenue-neutral if it were accompanied by increases in the taxation of people in higher income brackets but that's not what UKIP are proposing, is it? Farage's proposal is "cut taxes across the board and pay for it by leaving the EU + slashing foreign aid", not "reform the income tax system to make it more progressive". Second, Labour's plan is to increase the minimum wage from 54% of median earnings to 58% (which is expected to put it at �8/hr by 2020), not just raise it to �8/hr by 2020 no matter what. Here's a slightly more detailed explanation presented by Chuka Umunna's disembodied head. If there is strong general wage inflation between now and the end of the next Parliament as there was between 1999 and 2010 then their suggestion would put the 2020 minimum wage at well over �8/hr. However, nobody expects wage inflation over the next five years to be comparable to that seen in the late 90s and early-mid '00s so it's a bit meaningless to cite historical rates of NMW growth.

e: also, raising the personal allowance to �13,500 would save you �700/year if you were working 40 hrs/week on the current minmum wage. Assuming inflation doesn't exceed the 2% target over the next five years, raising the NMW to �8/hr would increase the same person's real disposable income by around �1300/year.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Oct 1, 2014

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 07:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 21:11

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

I will be voting and campaigning for Labour.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 09:17

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Grapevine now has it that Cameron's closing tory conference speech will have at least one big tax giveaway and that UKIP have a new defector lined up.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 10:53

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

"It is the Conservatives who are the party of social justice" - Michael Gove, introducing David Cameron's closing speech

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 11:36

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Zephro posted:

Dunno if this is the same tax cut, but apparently Dave just promised a �12,500 tax-free allowance, and shifting the higher-rate threshold to �50k.

So basically a tax cut for the bottom ~80%

The increase in the higher rate threshold is only beneficial to the top ~15% of earners; the increase in the allowance is beneficial to everyone between the bottom 15% and the top ~1.5%. If you earn over �50k, the combined effect of the proposed changes is to reduce your income tax bill by around �2100.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Oct 1, 2014

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 12:27

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Burqa King posted:

Labour won 44-36-16 in 2010 so I reckon that's safe or have there been swings of that magnitude before?

There have been much larger swings than that in the past but a seat Labour won by 8 points in an election where they performed disastrously on the national level should be pretty safe.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 13:02

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

tentish klown posted:

the cuts take the next ten percent out of taxation as well.

This is untrue because income tax is only one part of an individual's tax burden, and quite a small part for people on low incomes. This change does nothing to VAT, NICs, fuel/alcohol duty and so on. Second (and more importantly), that bottom 20% is the group that is most reliant on government services so they suffer the most from the cuts to services that are needed to enable these changes. The tax cuts are estimated to cost at least �7b, so

If you currently earn �0-�10k, you get completely hosed by the proposed changes - you gain no benefit and suffer the most from the >�7b reduction in funding for public services
If you currently earn �10k-�12.5k, you save up to �500 per year in income tax but almost certainly lose a lot more value from the necessary cuts to services
If you currently earn �12.5k-�42k, you save �500/year in income tax. The impact of the cuts in services gets progressively less severe as your income increases
If you currently earn �42k-�50k, you save �500/year from the change in the personal allowance and up to �1600 from the increase in the higher rate threshold. You probably earn enough to be completely unaffected by cuts to services.
If you currently earn �50k-�100k, you save �2100/year from the combined changes in tax and don't give a poo poo about the cuts to services.
If you currently earn �100k+, you save between �2100 and �1600/year from the tax changes and don't give a poo poo about cuts to services.

These changes hurt poor people and help people with high incomes.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 20:31

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Acaila posted:

Just seen this new YouGov poll tweeted. Dunno where the full thing is.

That's based on a small and not necessarily representative subsample of a national poll: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/yoh7f4x8x5/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-300914.pdf

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 21:55

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Turns out that nominating a mostly anonymous nobody for a major post on the European Commission may not have been Cameron's smartest move after all, even after Juncker made nice and let him try for the position he wanted:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b02beb82-4986-11e4-80fb-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Ema8wh2Y

quote:

Britain�s Lord Hill has been hauled back for an unprecedented second confirmation hearing to become Europe�s financial regulation chief after the European parliament faulted his grasp of the subject matter.
In a serious setback for the UK�s hopes of taking the Brussels job that it prizes most, the Conservative peer failed to win majority support among the main parties. He will be asked to return to answer more questions.
The surprise decision came after Lord Hill gave three hours of softly spoken testimony that almost pacified his audience with earnest pledges to pursue the European interest.

In the final reckoning, his attempts to avoid beartraps with studiously neutral policy declarations and a smattering of light humour proved insufficient to impress the vetting committee.
Sven Giegold, a senior Green MEP, said Lord Hill �was completely unable to provide any substance�. In Lord Hill�s defence, Kay Swinburne, a British Conservative MEP involved in the talks, tweeted: �not easy to learn five years of financial regulation in 10 days.�

Maybe, just maybe, Cameron shouldn't have asked a guy with no experience of financial regulation to run for the post of Europe's senior financial regulator.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 08:51

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

tentish klown posted:

It depends what the cuts to services are, but I broadly agree with you. However, it does follow the Tory party line of helping the people that help themselves.
It also encourages people away from the rhetoric of 'I'd be better off on benefits' as it takes everyone earning minimum wage out of income tax (iirc minimum wage on a 40 hour week is approx 12.5k a year).

What "rhetoric" are you talking about - who's going around extolling the glory of life on benefits? There are situations where it's better to be on benefits than to take on (additional) work, but they have nothing to do with income tax and everything to do with the stupid binary way in which certain benefits and tax credits are withdrawn as your income and hours of work increase. The OP links an excellent post by Ninpo describing one of these hosed up edge cases: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3541140&pagenumber=64&perpage=40#post414375333

Even if it were true that lots of people are currently un- or under-employed by choice and would be motivated to take up full time employment by income tax reductions, introducing a cut that primarily benefits people earning �50-100k is a retarded arse-backwards way of creating such motivation unless you believe that the true unmotivated slackers are the comfortable upper-middle classes.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 12:54

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Spangly A posted:

Have you got any links to the wonga story? My sister owes them a fair bit and we're currently having to hide it from My Chartered Accountant Father lest he goes on a rampage.

It's a headline story on most of the major news outlets...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29457044

quote:

Payday lender Wonga says it is writing off �220m of debts for 330,000 customers after putting in place new affordability checks.

The company, which has faced criticism for its high interest rates and debt collection tactics, made the changes after discussions with regulators.

Customers in arrears whose loans would not have been made under the new checks will have their debts written off.

A further 45,000 customers in arrears will not have to pay interest on loans.

Affected Wonga customers will be notified by 10 October.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 15:32

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

In purely practical terms, someone who's been refusing to pay tax for two decades and has kept themselves off the electoral register for that long almost certainly doesn't have enough money to be worth going after in the first place.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 16:21

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Gonzo McFee posted:

Going after people who don't have the money to pay is what the Poll tax was set up for in the first place, so I doubt it'll stop them.

No, it was set up as an alternative to the even dumber rates system, and was replaced by the marginally less dumb council tax. At this rate, we'll have a workable, well thought out and progressive system of property tax by 2150 or so.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 16:25

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

This thread started so well with lots of new posting friends coming to discuss contemporary British politics and current events in a spirit of good-natured fun

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 16:38

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Fangz posted:

So that's 0.1% of an outstanding 300+ million of poll tax debt. Yes, they are ignoring it.

This explains more about the current situation:
http://www.advicescotland.com/poll-tax-indy-referendum/

The short version is that councils at this point can only collect poll tax debt if it has been 'relevantly acknowledged'. So basically the few hundred thousand represent people misguidedly voluntarily paying the poll tax debt when they don't have to.

Writing off the poll tax seems a reasonable move, but it's ultimately one that is much less significant as it is made out to be. I suppose one might argue that there's some constitutional implications for the central scottish parliament to push this, when it should really be up to individual councils to write off the debt, as many have done, and will continue to do.

Jesus, Glasgow really disliked the poll tax. �125m outstanding when no other council area has more than �30m?!

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 17:03

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Coohoolin posted:

I didn't even realise they had a youtube channel, brilliant!

As far as I can tell from that video, her response to Salmond's announcement was to:
i) give him a dirty look for breaching parliamentary protocol (which the presiding officer also told him off for)
ii) have a dig at him for "underfunding local government"
iii) criticise the SNP's plan to cut the budget of NHS Scotland
iv) make a bad-tempered joke about Salmond's golf handicap

I don't think that any of those qualifies as "opposing this legislation"

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Oct 2, 2014

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 18:04

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Bape Culture posted:

I didn't see this. Once something like that has been done and there's a precedent. Can't you just not pay tax, cite that and end up with a quartered bill?

That depends on whether you can afford to hire Vodafone's lawyers and tax advisers when HMRC disagree with your assessment of your liabilities.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 18:08

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

TinTower posted:

Miliband's conference speech included a pledge to raise NMW to �8/hr by 2020, which is what it will be anyway if the Low Pay Commission keep it linked to inflation.

You're completely wrong about this because the pledge is to increase the minimum wage in relation to the median wage, not to just blindly hit �8 and call it a day. You're also blithely assuming that inflation over the next few years will be equal to that in the late 90s, which is completely inconsistent with everybody's expectations ("everybody" here being entities such as the bank of england and OBR).

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 20:01

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

TinTower posted:

Except �8 won't do a thing to increase the minimum wage at a faster pace than the median wage.

You're wrong. The proposal is to increase the minimum wage from 54% of the median to 58%. That will necessarily increase it more rapidly than the median wage. It just so happens that based on the expected rate of inflation over the next few years, this will take the NMW to �8/hr. If wage inflation is stronger than expected, it will lead to a correspondingly higher minimum wage.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 21:06

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

TinTower posted:

Actually, you're wrong:

Miliband didn't say anything about median wages anyway; he said he would raise NMW to �8/hr. The 58% figure seems to be calculated from the proposed NMW rate, not the other way around.

No u, srsly. Here is the actual policy as written up on the actual website of the actual Labour party and articulated by the disembodied head of Chuka Umunna:

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/an-8-minimum-wage

quote:

The wage rise is based on a proposed target to increase the NMW from 54% to 58% of median earnings by 2020 following consultation with business. Forecasts show that this target will take the NMW from �6.50 in October this year to �8.00 by 2020 � a rise of �1.50 an hour for Britain�s lowest paid workers, worth �60 a week or �3,000 a year for a full time worker on the minimum wage.

Miliband didn't say "we will raise the minimum wage from 54% of the median income to 58%" because if you say things like that the immediate reaction will be "OK, but what does that mean for me?" You have to present things in ways that are immediately understandable.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 21:41

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

TinTower posted:

I'm looking at the actual ONS figures now. They don't have any hourly wages at all, they have weekly wages. That �13.03 figure is someone in the Guardian offices punching in �517/40 into a calculator; as I've already said, hourly wages tend to be calculated from a standard 37.5 hour work week.

You're wrong. Sorry. The data you need to look at are here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-328216

Specifically, you want the file "ASHE 2013 (provisional) Table 1 - All Employees" and the "PROV - Total Table 1.5a Hourly pay - Gross 2013.xls" spreadsheet within it. It gives the median hourly wage for all employees in 2013 as �11.62. The minimum wage for the corresponding period was �6.31/hour. 6.31/11.62 = 0.54. The current minimum wage is 54% of the median hourly wage for all employees (not just full timers).

# ¿ Oct 3, 2014 06:23

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Regarde Aduck posted:

People said Labour did this last election. I'm not so sure. The more they stay out of power the worse it's going to be when they return. Unless they never plan to get elected again.

No political party would ever deliberately throw an election and it's silly to suggest anybody would even consider it.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2014 15:43

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Woah, wasn't expecting that. Still, the Tories have a month to turn it around and I imagine they'll throw the kitchen sink at it.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2014 22:36

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

The Lib Dems continue to be spineless wastes of space who will happily sell their supposed principles down the river for a sniff of power.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be863d24-4ca4-11e4-a0d7-00144feab7de.html#axzz3FIi3Zk1H

quote:

A 2017 popular vote on Britain�s membership of the EU is more likely than ever, with senior Liberal Democrats having told the Financial Times they are willing to give up their opposition to a referendum if the party were to enter into coalition talks with the Conservative party next year.
Lib Dem ministers and officials have told the FT they believe the Conservatives will refuse to negotiate on holding an EU vote two years after the next election They are drawing up plans to demand a heavy price in return.
A document passed to Conservative MPs by the party leadership at their conference last week in Birmingham told them to describe a 2017 referendum as a �red line� in any such talks. But the smaller coalition party, which gathers in Glasgow for its annual conference this week, will try to revive its largely unsuccessful platform of constitutional change in return for giving way on the EU issue.
One minister told the FT: �We can�t stop the Tories having their EU referendum, but it puts us in a strong negotiating position. We want them to give us a grand package of constitutional measures in return.�

# ¿ Oct 5, 2014 20:36

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

The great numberplate conspiracy is truly the defining issue of our time.

e:

CoolCab posted:

I thought UK plates went letter letter number number letter letter letter?

That convention was only adopted in... 2001, I think. Before that it was letter/three numbers/three letters, with the first letter denoting the year in which the car was registered.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Oct 5, 2014

# ¿ Oct 5, 2014 23:42

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Torygraph tales for a Monday morning.

Nick Clegg has some new red lines now that he's flopped on an EU referendum. New taxes on the middle class! No "legally illiterate" plans to ignore European human rights rulings! Walkies and bellyrubs for Cleggy at least once a month!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...id-Cameron.html

quote:

The Liberal Democrats have told David Cameron they will refuse to form a coalition with the Conservatives unless he commits to punishing tax hikes for the middle classes, Nick Clegg has said.
Mr Clegg set out a series of "red lines" that would prevent the two parties forming a Coalition in future as he attacked Mr Cameron's pledge to offer tax cuts to middle class Britons.
He also said that his party would not form a coalition with the Tories unless Mr Cameron abandoned his �legally illiterate� plans to allow UK judges to ignore European human rights rulings.
It came as Mr Clegg prompted fury from the Conservatives after he signalled he could be prepared to block the Prime Minister�s plans for a military intervention in Syria.

...

Mr Clegg for the first time set out a series of positions on the economy and justice that he said would prevent another coalition with Mr Cameron.
However, Norman Lamb, one of Mr Clegg�s key allies, suggested that it would be far more likely that the Lib Dems form another alliance with the Conservatives than Labour.
Mr Lamb, the care minister, suggested that it may be preferable for the Lib Dems to form a Coalition with the Conservatives even if Labour has the most seats after the general election.

I am sure the Tories will totally go for raising taxes on high earners after having made tax cuts for that group a centrepiece of their conference. Good job with the realistic aspirations, Cleggy!

Meanwhile, Boris has A Big Idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11142293/A-Citizens-Wealth-Fund-would-create-billions-for-investment.html

quote:

To explain this opportunity, let me ask you a question I recently posed to a senior member of the Government. How many public-sector pension funds do you think there are in the UK? I asked. �I don�t know,� he said. �A few hundred?� Keep going, I said. �A thousand?� he hazarded. I pointed upwards. His eyes rolled. �Ten thousand? You tell me!�

I told him. There are more than 39,000 public-sector pension funds in this country � each with its own trustees, each with its own managers and advisers and accountants. Every quango, every university, every branch of local government has its own pension fund, from British Nuclear Fuels to the Meat and Livestock Commission to the seven � yes, seven! � that were created to manage the pensions of those who were involved in the London 2012 Olympics.

The waste is extraordinary. Think of all those advisers and investment managers taking their fees � their little jaws wrapped blissfully around the giant polymammous udder of the state. Think of the duplication.

But it is worse than that, because this country is missing a huge opportunity, and one that is being exploited by more sensible governments around the world. Other countries have realised that it is mad to keep their pension funds divided into tens of thousands of relatively tiny jam jars of cash. They have smashed the jam jars, pooled the pension funds � and created gigantic sovereign wealth funds which they are using to invest in high-yield assets. The Dutch, the Canadians, the people of Singapore � they are all using pension-fund cash to invest tens of billions in infrastructure and housing, some of it in London.

We welcome that investment, of course. We are grateful. But is it not absurd that we are not able to call upon British pension funds to perform the same function? If we amalgamated our local authority pension funds, we would have a war chest of �180 billion; and if we added in all the public-sector pension funds, we would be talking hundreds of billions � and suddenly we would be able to direct those vast UK assets to the support of projects that are both socially useful and vital for the economy.

We will need to spend �100 billion in the next 10 years on power stations, if we are going to keep the lights on. If we pooled our pension fund assets, and created a Citizens� Wealth Fund, we would be able to get those schemes going � from new roads to new tunnels to hundreds of thousands of new homes for sale or rent (to say nothing of the new four-runway hub airport we need). And these investments would be attractive, because typically they would have a much higher yield � 7 or 8 per cent � compared with the 2 or 3 per cent currently achieved by pension fund managers in bonds or gilts. Roads and tunnels can be tolled; airports have charges; railways have passengers � and so on.

Superficially at least, the idea sounds attractive - better returns on pension funds, fewer advisers and managers to be paid, blah blah blah. The problem I see is ... what happens if this megafund runs into financial trouble? If one fund out of 39,000 runs into trouble, OK, whatever, we can bail it out. If you amalgamate those 39,000 into ten (or worse, just one) and they run into trouble, how do you keep it afloat? And second, what's the size distribution of those 39,000 funds? Are they all of similar size or are there a few giants and thousands of tiddlers? If the latter, it's hard to see how much would be gained by consolidation.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 07:40

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

ronya posted:

hmm yes, London infrastructure and housing should be a high-yield asset, even when flush with newly-mobilized funds. You sure about that, Boris? Is London's greatest bar to infrastructural or housing investment really an underdeveloped financial industry leading to credit shortages, so that mobilizing savings will create a glorious golden age of growth stemming from presently-unexploited investment projects? London, the new developing economy?

Wouldn't his proposed 7-8% yields be in the same kind of ballpark as the expected margins on a lot of current and proposed PFI deals? Even if those weren't acceptable on social housing in the south east, there would seem to be a number of other spheres where they could fly.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 14:17

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Coohoolin posted:

I'd like to share this wee update from Gordon Maloney, head of NUS Scotland, as it could be relevant for renters in Scotland.

Consultation is here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/10/9702

Based on the summary of the proposed new tenancy type, it seems to be full of holes. For example, it ostensibly removes "no fault" repossessions to prevent landlords from booting tenants out just because their original tenancy has expired. However, it doesn't stop the landlord from evicting the tenant indirectly by hiking their rent up to an unaffordable level following the expiration of the original term. Similarly, it stipulates a minimum tenancy duration but says that shorter terms can be permitted if requested by the tenant. Hi, I'm Mr. E. Vil. Landlord and my properties are only available to tenants who desire and are willing to request one month rolling tenancy agreements.

Basically, it looks like an attempt to placate people who want reform without doing anything of substance to change the workings of the private rented sector.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 14:54

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

ronya posted:

yes, but the reason those projects are not moving forward is not "we can't find financing at 7-8%", surely.

Well, having public sector pension funds invest directly into PFI projects would (hopefully!) alleviate at least one of the problems identified in the recent review of PFI contract performance - the tendency for investors to offshore the profits in order to avoid taxation. I suppose if you hope that public sector pension funds would behave more ethically than other investors, that would make them a more attractive source of financing.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1201/1201.pdf
Tax revenue is being lost through the use of off-shore arrangements by PFI investors and the effect has not been adequately assessed. The Committee is concerned that the Treasury has no plans to address this matter. Some PFI investors reduce their exposure to UK tax through off-shore arrangements. Yet the Treasury assume tax revenue in their cost-benefit analysis of PFI projects. The Treasury could not tell us if PFI investors had paid tax in the UK on profits and on equity gains, or whether corporation taxes had been collected from PFI companies..The Treasury should measure the tax revenues from PFI deals and should ensure that this is taken into account in future assessments of PFI against conventional procurement.

However, since at least some of the PFI projects discussed in that report are already financed by UK pension funds (via a group called Innisfree), I'm a little confused about how Boris' proposal is supposed to free up large quantities of additional cash. I appreciate the potential for efficiency savings and economies of scale from consolidating small funds into larger ones, but he seemed to be suggesting that there were additoinal benefits to be had.

Coohoolin posted:

Maybe we could have someone who'd rather engage and say why they think trying to apply concepts like proletariat and bourgeoisie nowadays isn't relevant or counterproductive instead of just saying it's silly or whatever.

Perhaps, as the guy who raised the subject and is planning to write a thesis on it, you could kickstart the discussion by outlining your position?

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 7, 2014

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 15:41

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Coohoolin posted:

Fair do's. I've been discussing the issue with my friends and colleagues for a while now, and we always get bogged down identity politics and the difficulty of finding a general framework. One common theme is usually that exploitation and hierarchical abuse can affect upper class people for their race and gender, and thus the term "proletariat" is no longer viable as it excludes race and gender issues from a potentially unifying definition of struggle. Of course the problem there is that you end up going to far in the other direction and have everyone separate into groups dedicated specifically to certain issues (not that this is a problem) who then refuse to interact with each other because they feel their issue is dismissed by each other (this is most definitely a problem). So I've always been of the opinion that what was needed was a reframing of the terms of debate in order to reach a reductionist binary choice- either you're exploited and harmed by the status quo, or you benefit from it. Proletariat or bourgeoisie. The trick is to redefine exploitation and harm to be as broad as possible labels for anything from financial and labour exploitation (class issues) to sexual objectification and harassment (gender issues) to racial abuse and ableism and so on and so forth. That way the term "proletariat" expands enough to be inclusive and still useful in a way that it provides those on one side with a clear end game and enemy.

The difficulty is convincing people that more issues than their pet project matter and that you can't deal with one and not the others without being a hypocrite.

Well, I'm not sure what I was expecting but I don't think it was this. If the proletariat encompasses everyone who has experienced any form of financial, sexual, racial, or disability issue, doesn't that effectively make it equivalent to "anyone who is not an able-bodied straight white male with money" ? That's certainly a pretty inclusive definition, but it also seems a bit too broad to support any kind of meaningful analysis.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 21:16

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

The modern proletariat: Chuka Umunna, Sajiv Javid, Katie Hopkins, Stephen Fry, and Cherie Blair. Working class heroes one and all!

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 08:57

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

The EU has approved the deal to build the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, paving the way for the construction of ten or more new facilities across the country over the next decade or two.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/372216e6-4ec0-11e4-b205-00144feab7de.html#axzz3FRfXplIv

quote:

Britain won EU approval for a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point on Wednesday, allowing the government to commit to 35 years of financial support for Europe�s biggest and most controversial infrastructure project.
Formal state aid approval from the European Commission, on the condition of some minimal revisions, came after an deeply divided debate that saw EU Commissioners from at least five countries voice objections to the plan.
The final outcome is an important boost for the project run by French utility EDF, which aims to provide 7 per cent of the UK�s electricity from the plant in Somerset, southwest England. Timely approval for the terms will allow EDF to move ahead with the search for outside investors.
Brussels initially raised serious doubts about the deal, saying it extended up to �17.6bn of potentially wasteful and illegal public subsidies to a project that would in all probability be profitable without them.
In response Britain made some amendments to introduce tougher profit clawback clauses to the Hinkley Point C contract, which would limit excess upside for private investors throughout the plant�s lifespan of 60 years or more.
While this won over the EU�s competition authority, it has done little to assuage objections from critics of nuclear energy, who fear the decision will clear the path for a new generation of heavily subsidised nuclear plants across Europe.

...

Crucially for EDF, there has been no change to the �strike price� of the 35-year contract for difference, which guarantees a minimum revenue for low carbon power generators.
The UK government has agreed to pay EDF �92.50 per MWh for the electricity output from Hinkley Point C � roughly twice the current wholesale price of power. In nominal terms, this rises to �279 per MWh in 2058, the last year of the scheme.
The �gain-share mechanisms� required by the commission are designed to recoup any unexpectedly high profits from the building of the plant, or from any refinancing and equity sales.
For instance over the life of the project, which could last more than 60 years, any profit beyond a 13.5 per cent return would be 60 per cent returned to the taxpayer. This kicks in at an earlier point than the mechanism first agreed between the UK and EDF, which proposed a 50-50 profit share after the project started making a 15 per cent return.

New plant + tougher contract terms = good.

e: also, it's interesting to compare this project's 13.5% return clawback threshold to the 7-8% overall return that Boris was discussing for financing sourced from public servants' pension funds.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Oct 8, 2014

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 11:32

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Zephro posted:

Good to see that the government's bold promise of nuclear power without subsidies is going ahead.

All major investments in power are subsidised, though. Well, maybe not fossil fuel plants, but they have a few uncosted negative externalities.

Also, unless there's a radical shift in the polling data, UKIP aren't so much "doing well among the British working classes" as they are picking up the old working class Tory vote. They're trailing miles behind Labour in Labour-held seats.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 15:12

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Zephro posted:

If developing grid-scale storage requires slightly less than twice what we presently pay for energy then renewables will be a better deal than nukes.

Well, that's a pretty big "if" there. And even if we assume that a viable grid-scale technology is just around the corner, you still have to contend with the energy density problem. IIRC, the conclusion about a mostly-renewables solution in Without Hot Air was "we could make it work if we devoted every single hectare of productive arable land in the country to the cultivation of energy crops and also annexed Morocco to build solar plants there." If the options are "build some nukes or invade some hapless desert country for its sunshine" I think I kind of prefer the nukes tbh. With that said, we're at a point where doing almost anything is infinitely preferable to just sitting on our hands and debating the pros and cons of solution A versus solution B, so I'm happy to see this deal go ahead.

quote:

I wouldn't be surprised if [UKIP's] message starts resonating with "traditional" Labour supporters at some point.

It has a fair bit of pull - people routinely cite immigration as their biggest concern when polled. The thing is, UKIP make themselves ridiculously easy to dismiss as more Tory than the Tories, and every disgruntled Tory they pull into their ranks only reinforces that picture. Maybe the Heywood byelection will prove the pollsters wrong and show that they really do have the ability to appeal to traditional Labour voters, but until that happens I don't think their message has much chance of overcoming all their negatives.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 15:50

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Zephro posted:

I'm not sure the definition of "the Tories' mates" extends to German or Chinese companies, but OK. And anyway, it was Labour who made the no-subsidies promise, knowing full well it would never happen. The companies have been lobbying for a strike price right from the start. They were in a powerful position, too, because the government had committed to building them and was relying on them to reach its stupendously ambitious carbon-reduction targets.

As it happens we owned Westinghouse up until 2006, so we could in theory have done the whole thing (sort of) in-house if we wanted to and avoided the problem of dealing with energy companies in powerful positions.

Autonomous Monster posted:

Well, we know that Finland are planning to build a nuclear plant that'll supply power at �no more than �50 (�41) per megawatt-hour�. I.e., less than half the strike price of HPC.

I'd put my money on corruption or just plain old incompetence here. Though, I guess with the profit sharing threshold it's just some sort of weird indirect tax now?

That Finnish plant uses a Russian design and is being heavily subsidised by Russia because they want to use it as a sort of loss leader to break into the European market. For some strange reason, the Russian nuclear industry has a bit of an image problem in the West...

e:

HorseLord posted:

The solution then is to mandate a higher minimum wage for immigrants than british citizens. It'd make it impossible for employers to exploit immigrants by underpaying them, and provide incentive for those employers to hire british people as a "cheaper option".

Anti-immigration types would explode.

If you were going to do this, you'd just double or triple the employers' national insurance contributions for each immigrant they take on rather than giving the immigrants a higher wage.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Oct 8, 2014

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 18:33

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

It's funny how the law that prevents the Scottish government from nationalising its railways somehow permitted the nationalisation of the East Coast mainline.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2014 08:38

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Looks like Lord Hill just about managed to convince the european parliament of his merits and will be taking up the post of financial services commissioner after all:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afeb469e-4e3c-11e4-bfda-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3FRfXplIv

quote:

Britain�s Lord Hill is poised to secure confirmation as the EU�s financial services chief after winning over critics at a hearing where he vowed to help prevent the UK leaving the EU.
The Conservative peer was recalled for a second public grilling after failing to impress the European Parliament last week with his grasp of the brief � an unprecedented move by MEPs that raised alarm in London.
After a more assured and overtly political 90-minute performance on Tuesday, with no obvious technical mistakes, senior MEPs on the vetting committee said Lord Hill was on the brink of being approved.

Point to Cameron, and possibly an indication of what other concessions might be secured by threatening to flounce out of the EU. Also, is everybody looking forward to welcoming the country's first (and possibly second) UKIP MP tomorrow morning?

# ¿ Oct 9, 2014 11:20

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Cerv posted:

Why has someone bought Bob Spink an account?

huh, i stand corrected

# ¿ Oct 9, 2014 12:33

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

twoot posted:

Devo-supermax*

*prison connotation not considered prior to use

Which of the "three main westminster parties" promised "devo supermax" ?

# ¿ Oct 9, 2014 17:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 21:11

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Some interesting analysis of UKIP from the economist and the graun's byelection liveblog:

quote:

Like all political outfits, UKIP is a coalition. It is a partnership of right-wing shire Tories and white, ageing working-class voters disillusioned with Labour. The instincts of these two groups differ in various areas, but they are united by a preference for authoritarian and nationalist policies. Yet a smaller �third UKIP� also exists: Thatcherite and libertarian, comprising much of the party�s youth and some of its younger parliamentary candidates. Until now, this lot have not been prominent (or, in the case of the quietly libertarian Mr Farage, frank) enough to melt the socially conservative glue holding the first and second UKIPs together. But Mr Carswell is nothing if not outspokenly small-statist. Unlike most of his new party, his instincts on immigration are liberal, he cares deeply about civil liberties and wants to disestablish the church. It is not impossible to imagine his election as UKIP�s first fully-fledged MP (and the way that he votes in parliament) hastening the confrontation between these different wings of the party.

Carswell himself was quite open about some of his liberal thinking in the statement he made when he announced his defection. Here�s an extract:

I�m joining UKIP not because I am a conservative who hankers after the past. I want change. Things can be better than this.
I am an optimist. Britain�s a better place than it was when I was born in the early 1970s.
We�re more open and tolerant. We�re, for the most part, more prosperous. More people are free to grow up and live as they want to live than ever before.
As the father of a young daughter, I�ve come to appreciate what feminism�s achieved. Most girls growing up in Britain today will have better life chances than before thanks to greater equality.
There�s been a revolution in attitudes towards disabled people.
What was once dismissed as �political correctness gone mad�, we recognise as good manners. Good �
On the subject of immigration, let me make it absolutely clear; I�m not against immigration. The one thing more ugly that nativism is angry nativism.

In an interesting blog for the British Future thinktank today, Sunder Katwala says that, if Carswell does set out to change Ukip, this will be �the most audacious modernisation project in British politics�, one that will look the New Labour transformation look modest. But Katwala also expresses considerable doubt as to whether this will happen.

The British Future article on Carswell is actually worth reading - its thesis is that he's joined UKIP not so much for the right wing populism so much as because he sees it as the best vehicle for getting out of the EU. I don't know enough about the man to know whether the relatively flattering picture it paints is accurate, but he's going to have a giant uphill struggle after the byelection if it is.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2014 23:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT October - Papers please. Theresa May Edition.

«‹›3 »