Now I am become Death, the destroyer of political parties – politicalbetting.com

Mortimer said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

Taxes won't save the planet.

They'll just get soaked up by bureaucrats, as always.

Incentivise technology to solve climate change, and it will be done.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

If anyone wants to get an understanding of where the US Republican primaries start next January, the Indycar race from Iowa is just about to start.

Pungent PB pundit alert - Iowa is site of Jan 2024 precinct CAUCUSES. Not a primary.

However, your actual point is totally correct!

Likely to be do-or-die (root-hog-or-die if you prefer) for Ron DeSantis.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.

There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.

Stuartinromford said:

DoubleCarpet said:

SigmaDos for TVE (I think this might be a large tracker poll taken today, rather than an exit poll):

PP 145-150
PSOE 113-118
Sumar 28-31
Vox 24-27
ERC 9
Junts 9
Bildu 6
PNV 5
BNG 1-2
CUP 1
CC 1
Teruel Existe 0-1

So PP+Vox is 169-177 (176 needed)

GAD3 for Mediaset:

150 PP
112 PSOE
31 Vox
27 Sumar

PP+Vox = 181

Sociometrica final poll:

PP 134-140
PSOE 109-115
VOX 35-39
Sumar 32-35

PP+Vox = 169-179

If those are the final scores, then Sanchez has lost, but pocketed some meaningful wins along the way for next time.

Key one is nixing Podemos (divaish fantasy hard left) by forcing them into the embrace of Sumar (practical hard left). The other one is bluntly posing the question to the PP- how much do they want to get into bed with Vox? Because there will be a cost in doing that. Whether that cost is small or large remains to be seen.

Still a loss, but there are good losses and bad ones. The risk for the UK Conservatives is that they lose, and lose in a way that makes future recovery even harder.

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

Andy_JS said:

DoubleCarpet said:

Spain

Ok so links below for one of the hotter election days I've followed (Canada Jan 2006 probably the coldest), lots of fans being waved and water bottles in the polling stations.

Polls close on the mainland at 7pm BST and results should be released from 8pm BST once the Canary Islands have finished voting.

Votes will be counted at polling stations (as in most countries) and with Spain being one of the fastest-counting larger countries, the whole country should be pretty much counted quicker than it took Uxbridge to get to recount stage on Thursday night.

Spain has a closed-list PR system using d'Hondt, with a 3% threshold, but the 50 provinces are the constituencies, so in the smaller ones that elect 3 or 4 MPs, the key will be who wins the 3rd and 4th seats, as only in the larger provinces such as Madrid or Barcelona are the results more proportional.

The November 2019 results map is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_November_2019_Spanish_general_election_(Congress)#Summary - note the low number of blue provinces (only 21% nationwide for the PP), with other notable results being Vox finishing top in Murcia and the north African enclave of Ceuta, while Teruel Exists finished top in Teruel.

For tonight, my gut feeling is that PP + Vox will just get over the 176-seat majority line and Feijoo to be next PM, with PP finishing a few points ahead of the PSOE, and the leftwing grouping Sumar finishing in fourth. However it could be close, and if neither PP/Vox or PSOE/Sumar have a majority, it will depend on how the various nationalist/regionalist parties go with their support for a government. If PP+Vox is a majority, will it be confidence and supply, or a full coalition?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5PZfDL99xo

https://resultados.generales23j.es/es/inicio/0

https://www.rtve.es/play/videos/directo/canales-rtve/24h/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Spanish_general_election

https://elpais.com/

https://www.elmundo.es/

Finally, Thursday night was a lot of fun, an interesting set of results, really enjoyed the updates and banter, and thanks again to HYUFD for his Uxbridge insight which translated into a winning bet for me.

Muchas gracias,

Alfombra Doble

Thanks DC. Always rely on you turning up on election day, wherever it is.

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.

There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting article.

"How David Bowie predicted the trans movement
His 1995 album, Outside, gave us a chillingly accurate foretaste of the contemporary cult of gender."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/23/how-david-bowie-predicted-the-trans-movement/

Pause.

Andy, you do know that trans people existed before 1995, yes? Also that David Bowie famously "dated" a trans woman in his 1970s Berlin days?

I know PB has no memory, but still this place is sometimes so ahistorical it's weird. I keep thinking I have to remind people that James Callaghan existed and was Prime Minister. MoonRabbit's view of unions is so warped it's scary

PB has the memory of the people it contains. Which always looks weird from a different timescale. For some, a decade ago is before they were interested in the world around them…

A simple example -

When I told people of a time when carpets were fitted (at relatively high expense) by a number of British workmen, it was met with incredulity. And that was 1998. Globalisation has collapsed costs and wages.

But to many here, a new carpet for a flat has always been a few hundred quid and fitted by a lone Bosnian* guy in a tearing hurry to get to his next job.

*Recent job I had done. He drank double espressos as fast I could make them. By the end of the job he was The Flash.

I believe you. Things change and nobody ever seems to remember things were different. I'm reading thru "Duty of Care" by David Hennessey ( I got depressed after reading Goodwin's VV&V book and thought I'd cheer myself up), and the first half was devoted to the 45to79 Butskellian consensus, when the Government thought it had a duty to do things FOR the British people instead of TO them. It's a whole different world.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.

It really doesn't matter if you sign up to it or not....the last 30 years have shown time and time again there is absolutely no appetite for global action. My view is supported by history, your view is based on a belief in fairy unicorns

Pagan2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.

All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.

The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.

The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is

People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now

There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.

You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.

It really doesn't matter if you sign up to it or not....the last 30 years have shown time and time again there is absolutely no appetite for global action. My view is supported by history, your view is based on a belief in fairy unicorns

It's my cagey optimism vs your nihilistic gloom.

Pagan2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.

All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.

The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.

The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is

People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now

There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.

You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.

There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.

That's nonsense. It's perfectly doable. Don't be such a faintheart.

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.

There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.

I agree there are problems, but there are two starting points of significance. One is that current property taxes (local authority taxes and business rates) are not progressive enough. Mayfair does not pay massively more than Accrington. Secondly, property taxes have one unignorable merit over all others, in that real property cannot be hidden or sent overseas. It is an area needing a good deal of attention and action.

Pagan2 said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

Northern_Al said:

I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).

As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.

But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard
Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.

felix said:

Early results favouring PSOE atm. Not sure the polls being reflected in the results.

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).

As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.

But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard
Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.

Brave, Al. Very brave.

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

So in the middle of a mortgage crisis, you’d be adding a tax on the property as well, to be paid by mortgage holders, based on the proportion of the property they actually own?

Alphabet_Soup said:

Northern_Al said:

I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).

As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.

But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard
Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.

And, of course, pitches were left uncovered throughout the match and bowlers like Underwood learned how to take advantage of a drying wicket. It was one of those obscure technicalities that made cricket more interesting. We'll never see his like again.

darkage said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)


G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels

Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030

The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.

Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.

The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.

However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.

Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.

Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.

Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.

The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).

DoubleCarpet said:

felix said:

Early results favouring PSOE atm. Not sure the polls being reflected in the results.

I noticed that but do we think there is a reporting bias going on? Or won't the early reporting stations tend to be smaller/more rural and should lean PP?

HYUFD said:

DoubleCarpet said:

felix said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

felix said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

Re the voting data for the GE in Spain. The figures do not include the postal votes which will be higher this time as the election is taking place in the middle of the main Spanish holiday season. It may be notable however that currently Catalonia is ove 8 points lower than last time. Possibly worse news for the left than the right as PP/VOX get far fewer votes in the Communidad.

When will we start to get results, are they counting overnight?

Exit poll at 8pm when the polls close. Counting is very quick as it's the D'Hondt method. As it could be very close it may be a while before we know which Coalition, if any, is viable, but the broad picture is likely to be apparent within a couple of hours.

So what is/are "bellweather" area(s) for Spanish GEs, if there are any?

Large Communities and some cities but there aren't constituencies in the UK sense. The biggest in Andalucia which PP took 2/3 years ago on an unprecedented landslide. Without a big recovery there Sanchez will struggle to be largets party. Then we have Catalunia and Madrid both big the former with a significant nationalist vote althjough their turnout figures look very low today. Finally, Galicia - Feijjo's great PP stronghold. However, the polls have been somewhat unclear, and it's not clear who will end up winning overall.

My understanding is that Aragon has been described as "the Ohio of Spain"? Although of course now Ohio leans red rather than being purple.

Katherine of Ohio doesn't quite have the same ring to it!

Miklosvar said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours

Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.

Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.

If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.

No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.

Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.

The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.

He hides 300,000 offshore, spends 300,000 on coke n hookers, and 300,000 on a ferrari which he then gets valued at 75,000 by a crooked assessor.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Why on earth is property so expensive in the UK?

MPs jumping on NIMBY bandwagons is just a symptom of course. They have no ability to impact a decision, and opposers will be much louder, so it almost always makes sense for them to come out against - if it gets approved they can always blame the local council or an inspector. Being in favour has equally no impact on the decision, and pleases fewer people.

MPs do have the ability to affect things, they set the f***ing law.

MPs could and should strip NIMBYs of the right to interfere or have any say at all in what other people do with their own land. As has already been done by MPs in Japan to great success.

We need Parliament to change the law. Only MPs can do that.

Japan has much tougher immigration laws than we do, it is extremely difficult to get permanent residence in Japan. Combined with their low birthrate they thus need less new housing

Forget Japan. It is another country.

Japan will likely see an excess supply of 10 million dwelling units in 2023, due partly to government housing policy through the 2000s that ignored falling demand caused by a shrinking population. The glut will further aggravate the problem of unoccupied homes, which topped 8.49 million in 2018.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Datawatch/More-empty-homes-Japan-s-housing-glut-to-hit-10m-in-2023

Empty homes aren't a problem they're a good thing. It means that supply exceeds demand which allows buyers (and renters) the strength to say no to dilapidated or bad homes, or expensive homes, and get good quality affordable ones instead.

How is that remotely a bad thing? Unless you are looking for a guaranteed income to sweat your asset and live off someone else's rent and you don't think they should have a right to say "not interested in paying you rent thank you".

Not to forget of course location, location, location. Tokyo has seen it's population rise significantly while other locations have seen population falls. Empty homes in locations people have no desire to live in don't help Tokyo's housing market.

The interesting added extra in Japan is earthquake resilience. If that report is correct a lot of the vacant houses aren't any great shakes in that respect, so to speak, being distinctly sub par [edit] by modern standards. I can't imagine it is a very cheap or easy retrofit, either. But IANAE.

Indeed that's the equivalent of dilapidated that I mentioned. Substandard homes don't have people living in them, as people can choose non-substandard homes to live in instead.

And that's a "problem" how exactly?

StillWaters said:

boulay said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

A rather depressing NYT article on the Ukrainian war

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/world/europe/weary-soldiersunreliable-munitions-ukraines-many-challenges.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Essentially, it’s a WW1 like stalemate. The Russians have got their act together - and of course it is easier to defend than attack. It’s literal trench warfare, a conflict of attrition - and Russia has more to attrit than Ukraine, tho Ukraine has more motivation to fight than Russia

I’ve spent the day marvelling at the bravery and endurance of the Ukrainians, but I fear they may have to accept an ugly armistice which divides Ukraine roughly where it is divided now. They can’t afford to kill all their young men, and that is the logical endpoint

If someone can show me an alternative and superior outcome for Ukraine that would be uplifting. I can’t see it

Some division always seemed likely. It is a question of backing their resistance so they dont feel pushed into that, which was the plan of Stop the West and fellow travellers. Hopefully they can push back closer to the 2014 lines at least.

I doubt they will get that. The counter offensive is failing. Russia has successfully dug in

Ukraine simply does not have the manpower to win a war of attrition like this. The alternative is the west provides them with huge super weapons. A seriously capable new air force. That’s not gonna happen

A Korean style armistice beckons

I'm not sure that's a great analogy.

This is an invasion. A large part of Ukraine is occupied with Russian troops.

Remember:: the invasion is usually the easy bit. Then there's the what next?

Because occupying countries is fucking tough: look at Afghanistan or Northern Ireland. It means that Russia is constantly sending money and young men out west, and for what?

Russia is Russifying the occupied territories very fast. Replacing Ukrainians with apparently loyal
Russians or “new Russians”

That’s the plan

Of course in the long term this is disastrous for Russia as it will face an incredibly hostile Ukraine for generations. And a fifth column of Ukrainians inside Russia who could do anything

I reckon this ultimately ends with Putin being toppled because of this catastrophic error

However in the medium term, militarily, I don’t see how either side can win. And that means some sort of ceasefire, inevitably. It won’t be peace. It will be an armistice, a sort of truce: until next time

It took Ukraine three months to push the Russians out of Kherson.

Russia’s in a similar position to Germany after Kursk. The initiative has been lost, and they can only react to attacks. And they face an insurgency.

That’s a fairly absurd analogy. The USSR had almost limitless men, and by 1943 huge supplies from the USA and UK. Nazi Germany was also fighting on at least two other fronts - with the Royal Navy and US navy confronting it at sea, and the RAF and USAF bombing Germany itself to cinders

Ukraine is not the USSR of 1943; Russia is not the Third Reich in inevitable retreat in 1943

Korea is the better comparison

Just repeating something, doesn't make it so.

Russia is under enormous strain right now. They are begging their allies for any weapons they can, and who is stepping up? Hardly anyone.

By contrast, Ukraine gets better equipped by the day.

Don't forget, Russia's big advantage was artillery. But barrels don't last forever. Every time you fire there's a thermal expansion, contractions cycle, and that means they are running through their artillery pieces at a rate, even as the West continues to ship new (better) kit to Ukraine.

As Big G’s granddaughter’s cohort would say “this is so,like, Russia’s Afghanistan.”

As opposed to, say, Afghanistan being, like, Russia’s Afghanistan?

Peck said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

geoffw said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

felix said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

Re the voting data for the GE in Spain. The figures do not include the postal votes which will be higher this time as the election is taking place in the middle of the main Spanish holiday season. It may be notable however that currently Catalonia is ove 8 points lower than last time. Possibly worse news for the left than the right as PP/VOX get far fewer votes in the Communidad.

When will we start to get results, are they counting overnight?

Exit poll at 8pm when the polls close. Counting is very quick as it's the D'Hondt method. As it could be very close it may be a while before we know which Coalition, if any, is viable, but the broad picture is likely to be apparent within a couple of hours.

So what is/are "bellweather" area(s) for Spanish GEs, if there are any?

bellwether, doh!

My question both psephological AND meteorological.

A bellwether is a flock-leading ram wearing a bell. Nothing to do with the weather.

MattW said:

darkage said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)


G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels

Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030

The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.

Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.

The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.

However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.

Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.

Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.

Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.

The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).

For context G20 are 75%+ of world emissions as quoted.

But also 64% of population.

I think the core issue is getting USA and the BRICS properly on board.

rcs1000 said:

Miklosvar said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours

Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.

Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.

If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.

No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.

Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.

The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.

He hides 300,000 offshore, spends 300,000 on coke n hookers, and 300,000 on a ferrari which he then gets valued at 75,000 by a crooked assessor.

The assessor problem has been solved by the French: you declare the value of your Ferrari at £75k and anyone is allowed to pay a 50% premium to assessed value to acquire it. Undervaluing assets becomes a very risky game.

felix said:

Just seen a note on the news which suggests PSOE doing well in small towns with PP recovering in the cities. At this point I think Sanchez will hold on.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours

Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.

Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.

If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.

No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.

Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.

The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.

We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.

You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.

Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)

Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.

Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.

I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.

All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.

The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.

The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is

People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now

There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.

You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good

Taxing pensioners out of expensive houses would be popular, for some.

Where I live, there are a number of people who lived in their houses since the area wasn’t fashionable. Now they are “bed blocking” the people who want to buy a big house and rip it out and redo. Kick the pensioners and poors out, and sell to people with millions in cash.

There’s one lady I know whose husband bought in the late 50s. Windrush bus driver - literally. She wants to stay in the house - couple of generations live with her. Refuses big offers. Let’s get her in the street. Fuck! Yeah!

Gardenwalker said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting article.

"How David Bowie predicted the trans movement
His 1995 album, Outside, gave us a chillingly accurate foretaste of the contemporary cult of gender."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/23/how-david-bowie-predicted-the-trans-movement/

Pause.

Andy, you do know that trans people existed before 1995, yes? Also that David Bowie famously "dated" a trans woman in his 1970s Berlin days?

I know PB has no memory, but still this place is sometimes so ahistorical it's weird. I keep thinking I have to remind people that James Callaghan existed and was Prime Minister. MoonRabbit's view of unions is so warped it's scary

PB has the memory of the people it contains. Which always looks weird from a different timescale. For some, a decade ago is before they were interested in the world around them…

A simple example -

When I told people of a time when carpets were fitted (at relatively high expense) by a number of British workmen, it was met with incredulity. And that was 1998. Globalisation has collapsed costs and wages.

But to many here, a new carpet for a flat has always been a few hundred quid and fitted by a lone Bosnian* guy in a tearing hurry to get to his next job.

*Recent job I had done. He drank double espressos as fast I could make them. By the end of the job he was The Flash.

I believe you. Things change and nobody ever seems to remember things were different. I'm reading thru "Duty of Care" by David Hennessey ( I got depressed after reading Goodwin's VV&V book and thought I'd cheer myself up), and the first half was devoted to the 45to79 Butskellian consensus, when the Government thought it had a duty to do things FOR the British people instead of TO them. It's a whole different world.

Edgerton is also good on this.
A period when the government was consciously trying to build a British state, instead of leaving it to hollow out.

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”


“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9c67eb16-931b-462c-9174-32245725da07

#ClimateChangeIsReal maybe?

Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.

Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.

You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont

Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent
People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own.
Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%

The rich will find ways around the wealth tax

Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?

“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.

There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.

That's nonsense. It's perfectly doable. Don't be such a faintheart.

There aren’t enough 10 bedroom mansions with swimming pools to fund a property tax.

So you’d have to tax “ordinary” houses. Where are people going to find the extra income from to fund the taxes? Not as if most people aren’t paying taxes already.

We're shifting the tax burden a bit from income to wealth. Don't you want to? Thought this was sliced bread on here, left and right.

felix said:

Watching the TV a buy line suggests traditionally PP vote improves later in the count. We'll see.

Pagan2 said:

MattW said:

darkage said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)


G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels

Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030

The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.

Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.

The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.

However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.

Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.

Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.

Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.

The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).

For context G20 are 75%+ of world emissions as quoted.

But also 64% of population.

I think the core issue is getting USA and the BRICS properly on board.

Don't forget germany which shut down its nuclear plants, not only build lignite plants to make up but has bulldozed at least one windfarm to open an opencast lignite mine....oh but global action is going to occur...I believe in unicorns that fart rainbows

felix said:

Just on cue PP Jump level with PSOE. The fat lady is not yet singing!