Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rolling back green taxes will create some CON branding issu
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rolling back green taxes will create some CON branding issues
It hasn’t really been touched on yet but one of the problems facing the Conservative leadership on rolling back green taxes is that it goes against much of what David Cameron was trying to achieve in his early days as leader and how he was trying to define his party.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
peach cobbler for breakfast it is then ....
The obvious move would be to change to a different leader. But if they're not going to do that, they shouldn't run against green taxes.
For instance, the now-ended 'warm front' scheme seemed to be more about helping people in fuel poverty than actually reducing CO2 emissions. Helping such people is a worthy cause, but any connections to reductions in CO2 emissions are indirect, to say the least. It's replacement should be taken off energy bills.
In addition, the Warm Home Discount does nothing to reduce CO2.
However building a few new nuclear power stations will reduce CO2 emissions markedly (*). With that one move, the coalition have moved more towards a sensible and workable policy than Ed did in his time at DECC.
A list of the taxes can be found at:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/the-seven-green-taxes-that-put-112-on-your-energy-bill-and-which-of-them-ed-miliband-brought-in/
If we want some of these non-green things, they should be put on general taxation rather than hidden indirectly on energy bills.
(*) Some green advocates even doubt that.
Mercifully Colorado doesn't have a state dish - but the only edible state symbol is the trout......no laughing at the back!
http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_food.htm
Meanwhile back in the real world we have the Dunfermline by-election today. The only real issue is how large is the Labour majority? If Labour doesn't win and win easily then it is a problem for La Lamont and her boss Ed Milibland. If Labour doesn't win it is a disaster for them. Should the SNP actually hold the seat then forget what the opinion polls say, Labour has real problems in Scotland.
What we don't know is how the UNITE disaster at Grangemouth will play out, if at all, in the by-election. It is the neighbouring seat just across the Firth of Forth and Gordon Brown's fiefdom.
As a Tory, if we hold our deposit and finish in 3rd place that would be an excellent result. In 2011 we finished 4th with roughly half the votes of the LibDems.
Frankly my dear I don't give a damn ....
I've just noticed I've got "MikeK" as a neighbour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Timber !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Irony meter now in orbit heading for planet "tim"
As regards the header I think what we are talking about here is what should have been done in the first place. The cost of some green policies, such as energy efficiency and subsidising bird whisks will be taken off our energy bills and added to general taxation. I don't see anything particularly "ungreen" about that.
The government is committed to subsidising inefficient energy sources for some considerable time and the money wasted on that has to be found somewhere. It is the stealth tax aspect that will go thereby helping the poor at the cost of higher tax payers. The sort of thing Labour would have done if it was not determined to discourage us all from using energy to save the planet (and possibly reduce the pension bill I suppose).
I remember being in the US during the Labour conference and reading on here about the total and unmitigated disaster that was unfolding in Brighton. Perhaps it was not as bad as some had believed!
Still, Labour should be grateful - a competent tory leader would be trouncing EdM in the polls.
It was, surely, not very prescient of him to commit his personal branding so deeply into a theme that was apparent to anyone with the slightest critical faculties to be scientifically dubious and, more importantly, ideologically at odds with the core Tory beliefs on economic growth, freedom and aspiration. What that tells me is that Dave was more worried about seeming than being. And that's the difference between him/Blair/Miliband/Clegg/most politicans and the likes of Maggie/Callaghan/Reagan/Attlee. The latter group believed something and strove for it.
Actually on the whole I quite like Dave and the general direction of this government is pretty good. But tim is right to highlight the PM as fake fake Dave.
Smart meters are a good thing, although initially costly. ISTR a report that showed when people could see their energy usage, their energy usage decreased markedly. For this reason alone it should continue.
And I'm not just saying that because Mrs J worked on a chip for one such system. ;-)
It can also take a couple of months to swap energy supplier. Since there is no real physical work to be done (i.e. they do not put new pipes or cables down the street but use the shared infrastructure), can anyone justify why it takes so long to swap? This should be reduced to a maximum of a working week, and the 'cooling off' period reduced to a maximum of a week as well.
It's easy to promise the Earth when you don't have to implement that promise. It's harder to actually do something.
Ed found this when he was at DECC, and spent his time reacting to luvvie demands on energy instead of ensuring we had a workable system in the future.
The basic problem here is that the Tory leadership seems to have been genuinely taken by surprise that there might be a cost of living crisis out there in the real world.
In terms of global warming they are almost certainly right. The idea that the planet is somehow improved because a pensioner cannot afford another bar on their fire is just obscene and inhuman.
Green politics was another excuse for politicians to attend important conferences and to tell us what to do. The attractions for the political class are obvious. The attractions for the rest of us less so.
There are lots of embarrassing quotes from Cameron who was undoubtedly on board for this nonsense for a while. But in the long run such a shift is a much bigger problem for Ed, the man who cried at Copenhagen. It is a serious part of who he is. He may not believe in much (other than getting elected) but he believes in this.
Indeed, Mr. Jessop.
A u-turn only matters in terms of political damage if it loses support. Who would Cameron upset by this move? Greens? Guardian readers? The people who can afford higher fuel bills?
Who would he potentially gain from such a move? Almost everyone else.
The country is far more sceptical of this green nonsense than it was back when Cameron had his husky photos. Partly that's economic (it's easier to make a financial sacrifice if you can actually afford it), and partly that's because the chaps claiming to be scientists have a notable habit of being wrong.
A short time after the "We'll never have snow again" article in the Independent we had a couple of historically cold (and snowy) winters. The IPCC got its medium term forecast for temperature wrong, then upgraded its confidence in how tremendous and correct it was from 90% to 95%.
If Labour and the Lib Dems want to use the attack line "Look at the nasty Tories! They're lowering your fuel bills [which Ed Miliband increased]!" I suspect the blues will somehow manage to live with that.
Oppositions don't get credit or blame for governance.
...
I wonder if Antifrank still thinks I am "dead wrong" for forecasting that the next election would not be fought on reducing the deficit, but putting money in people's pockets?
Give it away, give it away, give it away now!
Any scheme the coalition comes up with will be less compelling, because they will have to implement it. In other words, Ed can promise the Earth. The coalition have to actually do it.
Just look at the synthetic hatred that appeared on here towards the energy companies that sprung up immediately after Miliband's announcement. Accusations of price fixing, price gouging, cartels and others were made, but when asked for evidence of these specific claims, none came forward.
It's the old politicians' trick: create an enemy, ideally a worthy one, but any will do, and target them.
Exactly as McBride did whilst under Ed, Ed and Gordon at the treasury. If there's a problem, create an enemy; anyone, regardless of guilt, and blame them to protect yourself.
In the same way, I suspect that were Dave to reduce green taxes, people would happily take the savings, such as they are, but they would not actually give much credit to the Tories, who would be seen to be doing it only because they were forced into it by Labour.
For instance:
Make all local authorities have the same maximum recycling capabilities.
Oblige all water companies to ensure that all surface water does not go to the sewers and so overflow and pollute the sea. In many countries coastal towns allow surface water to flow along the streets and into the sea - but rarely in the UK.
Minimise prepackaging in supermarkets. Already at many for fruit and veg are reverting to market-style pick and weigh.
All new builds to have solar panels on the roof and very efficient insulation including triple glazing. Link if possible to a local heating system that uses waste heat.
Exploit subterranean gasification of coal and fracking, using globally known technology.
Use global technology for renewable and have a UK action plan on this.
As a conservative I just think Cameron is less wedded to telling people what to do for their own good than someone like Ed. Ed and Labour generally never really doubt the government knows best.
Looking forward to discussing this over cocktails in Georgia by the way. Not sure about some of the neighbours though!
A large part of government policy has been based on taxing undesireable behaviours, from driving, congestion charging to minimum alcohol prices and fat taxes. Green taxes fall into this form of social control, with the often explicit target of reducing consumption by making ungreen habits expensive.
Most of these taxes are heavily regressive and are legislated by wealthy metropolitans to be paid by the lumpen proletariat, as a way of social control.
Apart from the wisdom of many of these social objectives, we do ned to consider whether the entire philosophy is right in a free society.
I am in favour of a diverse range of energy sources, so we are not dependent on Russian gas or Saudi oil, but the costs of doing this should be funded from general taxation rather than directly by the consumer.
Dunfermline by-election
Lab 1/4 BetVictor
SNP 7/2 Betfair, Ladbrokes
LD 50/1 Ladbrokes
Grn 100/1
Ind 100/1
UKIP 100/1
Con 150/1
Andrew Bloch @AndrewBloch
15 pages on royal christening in Daily Mail. Here's The Independent's coverage in full: 4 lines at bottom of p27 pic.twitter.com/HMoXfmWFwU
The basic problem here is that the Tory leadership seems to have been genuinely taken by surprise that there might be a cost of living crisis out there in the real world.
It isn't easy to rebut, as it sounds compelling and targets an 'enemy', i.e. the energy producers and suppliers. People would want to believe the problem is easy to fix, even if it is not.
Any scheme the coalition comes up with will be less compelling, because they will have to implement it. In other words, Ed can promise the Earth. The coalition have to actually do it.
Just look at the synthetic hatred that appeared on here towards the energy companies that sprung up immediately after Miliband's announcement. Accusations of price fixing, price gouging, cartels and others were made, but when asked for evidence of these specific claims, none came forward.
It's the old politicians' trick: create an enemy, ideally a worthy one, but any will do, and target them.
Exactly as McBride did whilst under Ed, Ed and Gordon at the treasury. If there's a problem, create an enemy; anyone, regardless of guilt, and blame them to protect yourself.
Nice theory, but it's people such as Tory energy minister Michael Fallon and Tory ex-PM John Major who are calling the energy companies greedy and accusing them of making excessive profits.
39/32
If we're doing that anyway then (costs not being excessive) it makes sense to make it high speed.
I've never been a Conservative but, unlike tim, I would never advise them on a better alternative to Cameron. If they did elect May, tim would spend all his time bringing up shoe and cat stories, and generally belittling her - no doubt concluding that they'd jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
But unfortunately, for the Tories, Cameron possibly is keen on green issues, hence the hesitation about reversing the green taxes. And tim's right - if he did reverse them, it would make him look unreliable and short of of principle. Ed's fine here, he hasn't many principles to start with.
The LDs can probably get away with it (a big boy made them do it) but Cameron would look false. Although pandering to the greens was never going to be a vote winner anyway.
Kincardine (Kincardine-on-Forth)
Culross
Oakley
Torryburn
Charlestown
Limekilns
Kingseat
Saline
... and quite a large rural area between the Firth of Forth and the Cleish Hills (Ochils).
The constituency is adjacent to:
- Clackmannanshire and Dunblane (Keith Brown MSP, SNP)
- Cowdenbeath (Helen Eadie MSP, Lab)
- Perthshire South and Kinross-shire (Roseanna Cunningham MSP, SNP)
Since you seem to be one of the more switched-on centre-left people on here, how do you see Miliband's price freeze scheme working in various scenarios?
As a matter of interest, do you think Tesco makes excessive profits? And what are 'excessive profits'? Do you take the headline net profit figure, the operating income, or the ratio of revenue to net profit?
It would send the message that the only way to protect the environment is to increase energy prices to a level where thousands of people are tipped into fuel poverty and businesses become uneconomic.
That is clearly garbage.
As for the HS2 BCR, there has been an honest one done, and it is being updated atm (it's hard for an honest BCR to be simple).
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/Updated economic case for HS2.pdf
Here's another quiz question: which Conservative (yes: Conservative!) prime minister abolished the ancient counties of Scotland, which had slowly evolved since the early middle ages? An astonishing piece of social and political vandalism, rarely mentioned in modern Scotland.
Increasing rail capacity is just the latest excuse to justify it.
An anecdote from John Redwood which demolishes that excuse:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/10/16/the-7-20-train-to-manchester/
But regressive green and other "sin" taxes are not particularly conservative.
It might not be "open on tropical beach-Three tanned girls slowly emerge from crystal clear water.......' which always goes down so well at this time of the year but It's not every day advertisers get the chance to do something as iconic and game changing as a "Labour Isn't Working".
(To whom it may concern. This is not an offer. I still prefer tropical beaches...)
What have you been doing? I have a cat-based advert on PB now and do not even own a cat.
"Conservative Logo .....
Timber !!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I like it!!
LOL
I guess Cameron will not have a comfortable time at the EU summit today - though I suspect most will be too polite to mention it, if the US has been bugging Merkel's phone, the chances must be high they shared at least some of that with us.....
Heath is probably more remembered north of the border for another astonishing thing: his "Declaration of Perth". http://www.scotsman.com/news/four-decades-on-declaration-of-perth-is-still-fuelling-debate-1-1169195
It was not until Maggie Thatcher took over the leadership that the Tories officially dropped that policy. Malcolm Rifkind had to do all kinds of emotional and rhetorical somersaults.
"what is this logo, is it early Picasso, is it Matisse, or is it Pollocks?"
I think it's brilliant. One of the smartest bits of rebranding I've seen. Steve Hilton against much derision from the Tory Luddites. It changed the perception of the Tories overnight.
Unfortunately I can't find the name of the person who penned it.
The problem is the lack of pay rises.
This is a problem that started a decade ago with globalisation and since then has been steadily climbing up the socioeconomic ladder. Until 2010 it was only the lower levels which were suffering and the increase in household debt effectively provided a 'painkiller' to the symptoms.
But it has now reached high enough to be experienced by swing voters and to have been noticed by the media.
It has though come as a surprise to the Cameroons. They lack knowledge of and empathy towards those lower down the socioeconomic scale and to them globalisation still means cheap domestic workers and rising property values.
Hence the baffled floundering of the Conservative leadership.
Meanwhile Spanish unemployment falls 0.28%.....to 25.98%.....
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/24/grangemouth-rescue-talks-chinese-manufacturing-picks-up-live
Hence capacity was the driving force of HS2 from the beginning, not the 'latest excuse'. Railt usage (both passenger and freight) have increased massively since privatisation, and barely saw a decrease during the recession. I see little reason that increase will not continue.
Nothing has changed since that 2009 report. The capacity crunch is still coming (and is in some cases on us).
A BBC report from 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8071249.stm
As for Redwood's article: it's good to see Labour supporters finally accepting anecdotes as evidence. Sadly, Redwood ignores many other factors such as freight traffic, and the fact that passenger levels today are far less than the future projections. It is hardly a 'demolition'.
Stamp duty increases reflect (a) Osbornes increase for 5 to 7% at the top end and (b) house prices I P/SP London. Suggest you dig into the substance (or lack of) in Balls' pronouncements before you give a ringing endorsement.
Cameron personally loses a lot of credibility through this.
Not a bad idea as I can`t see the LD`s give up on them completely as being green is one of three flagship policies to show for their time in power,raising income tax threshold and pupil premium being the other two.
Were they even hypothecated? If they weren't - its all smoke and mirrors anyway.
And btw there are no shortage of capacity crunches on the transport networks now but they're not getting £50bn thrown at them.
Incidentally why is there going to be an enormous increase in rail usage ? Can anyone explain or is yet another case of 'extrapolate to infinity' to meet someone's vested interest.
These two have nothing to do with greenery, and should come from general taxation. That would reduce direct energy bills by £58. Even better, as happens with general taxation, the rich would pay the majority of the new taxation, whilst everyone would get the benefit of lower fuel bills. Therefore the poor would benefit the most.
Result!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/the-seven-green-taxes-that-put-112-on-your-energy-bill-and-which-of-them-ed-miliband-brought-in/
Who do you trust to manage the country's economic recovery (net)
Government/Leader:
Con/Cameron: -23
Lab/Miliband: -32
Con/Johnson: -35
Lab/Balls: -44
Con/Lib: Cameron/Clegg: -35
Lab/Lib: Miliband/Clegg: -53
Con/Lib: Cameron/Cable: -44
Lab/Lib: Miliband/Cable: -43
Interesting the swings when Cable is included - worse than Clegg with Cameron (-9), but better with Milliband (+10) than Clegg.....
Only Paddy Power, Ladbrokes and Betfair still in operation. Best Lab price at the bookies (1.2), best SNP price at Betfair (6).
To save you from embarrassment I wont mention the names of the others you have now joined.
""We will increase the proportion of tax revenue accounted for by environmental taxes"
Perhaps some Lib Dems should comment on the failure of Chris Huhne's Green Deal?
Though as HS2 is due to be built from London northwards it is already clear which place would benefit most.
"And congratulations Josias you are the most intelligent PBer so far to accuse me of being a Labour supporter."
In that case I can think of only one other PBer who might be the guilty party.
"And btw there are no shortage of capacity crunches on the transport networks now but they're not getting £40-50bn thrown at them."
No, they're not getting £50 billion thrown at them over twenty years (HS2). They're getting £37.5 billion thrown at them between 2014 and 2019. Funded by borrowing by Network Rail, with the loans back by government guarantee. Yuck. But this figure is just Network Rail - it does not include the investment the train companies are making, for instance in rolling stock.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20938280
As for the growth in rail usage, the projections show an increase in both passenger and freight traffic. The reasons for the increase over the last two decades are clouded by politics, but have happened.
The problem is that we have had sixty years of managed decline in the rail network. That was fine whilst traffic decreased; it is unsustainable now traffic is increasing.
Given that most of the increase in energy bills over the last decade has been due to increases in the market price of gas, then the political argument can be made that this is the only way to avoid future increases in fossil fuel prices from increasing energy bills in the future. With China and India still industrialising rapidly there is surely only one direction for fossil fuel prices, and it isn't down.
Cameron has certainly painted himself into a corner here, and often the only way out of a tight spot is with some bold action
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/23/butter-bad-saturated-fat-healthy-eating-industry
I had missed the dropping of the stricture on eggs from 'no more than two a week' to 'form part of a balanced diet'....bit like a Daily Mail retraction.....
Paddy Power cut their LAB price to 1.17
Ladbrokes still 1.2
They should use the HS2 money to improve the Northern intercity routes such as Sheffield to Manchester.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/10/the-best-and-the-worst-of-john-major.html
Must be a heck of a lot of money piling onto LAB this morning. Let's see if it is very wise money or very daft money.
It takes a lang spoon tae sup wi a Fifer.
That'd be very unwelcome, if it happened. However, it does back up, I think, what Joe Saward wrote regarding Lotus' efforts with a big money sponsor (ie if it comes off they'll go for Hulkenberg, if not, Maldonado's money).
Still not sure when I'll put up the pre-qualifying piece (India has awkward P3/qualifying times), but the early discussion is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/india-early-discussion.html
Can someone sort out the shambles that is the Green Deal also?