Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[bobzmyunkle]

Another example why the Greens are both incoherent and populist.

View attachment 14756

Is it? Or is it just an example of banal commentary?

 

[briantrumpet]

Is it?

It is.

A responsible thoughtful *green* party wouldn't dream of blanket subsidising the use of fossil fuels and contributing to their profits at time when the responsible thing would be to use a price shock to reduce its use and promote the take-up of renewables.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

It is.

A responsible thoughtful *green* party wouldn't dream of blanket subsidising the use of fossil fuels and contributing to their profits at time when the responsible thing would be to use a price shock to reduce its use and promote the take-up of renewables.

Are you getting that information from the post above? From the Green election manifesto? From Nigel Garage?

 

[First Aspect]

It is.

A responsible thoughtful *green* party wouldn't dream of blanket subsidising the use of fossil fuels and contributing to their profits at time when the responsible thing would be to use a price shock to reduce its use and promote the take-up of renewables.

Out of interest, when Truss gave blanket assistance towards energy costs in 2022, including to high earners, but not to businesses, what did the greens say?

Because the latest announcement is even more simplistic and costly as far as I can tell. It is "free money" level nonsense that the SNP would be proud of.

(Mind you the latter have promised price controls in supermarkets, which is stiff competition for the "ill conceived populist promises" merit mark this week).

 

[bobzmyunkle]

From Nigel Garage?

Autocorrect. Still you know what I mean.

 

[briantrumpet]

Are you getting that information from the post above? From the Green election manifesto? From Nigel Garage?

No, from thinking through the consequences of simply paying everyone for increased costs of fossil fuels. The history of this type of subsidy is that it always ends up in the pockets of the businesses, not those it's supposed to help. It's simplistic tosh that's actually counterproductive.

 

[First Aspect]

What do we think he means by "setting aside"?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

No, from thinking through the consequences of simply paying everyone for increased costs of fossil fuels. The history of this type of subsidy is that it always ends up in the pockets of the businesses, not those it's supposed to help. It's simplistic tosh that's actually counterproductive.

View attachment 14762

Must have missed that bit in your original post.

 

[briantrumpet]

Must have missed that bit in your original post.

I wasn't writing a PhD.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

For those not reading the non-existant PhD

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles...igher government borrowing and mortgage costs.

The history of this type of subsidy is that it always ends up in the pockets of the businesses, not those it's supposed to help

The party argues the estimated £8.4bn costs could be covered by hiking taxes on capital gains, and tightening an existing tax on energy firms' profits.

 

[briantrumpet]

For those not reading the non-existant PhD

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyxyr42jzvo#:~:text=In a speech, Zack Polanski, the leader,of higher government borrowing and mortgage costs.


The party argues the estimated £8.4bn costs could be covered by hiking taxes on capital gains, and tightening an existing tax on energy firms' profits.

So they tighten a tax the profits (whatever that means) and then give it back to them through a subsidy to everyone. Genius.

It's equally nonsensical to delay the 5p/l fuel duty rise, given the need to stifle demand for fossil fuel products.

 

[First Aspect]

For those not reading the non-existant PhD

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles...igher government borrowing and mortgage costs.


The party argues the estimated £8.4bn costs could be covered by hiking taxes on capital gains, and tightening an existing tax on energy firms' profits.

The point is that it is only an £8.4Bn cost because the idea of giving everyone help with energy bill is stupid.

Hands up whether you think people with six figure salaries should get a £300 energy cost rebate? Hands up anyone who thinks they should get the same as someone on minimum wage?

 

[CXRAndy]

The point is that it is only an £8.4Bn cost because the idea of giving everyone help with energy bill is stupid.

Hands up whether you think people with six figure salaries should get a £300 energy cost rebate? Hands up anyone who thinks they should get the same as someone on minimum wage?

people with substantial savings or income dont need the £300..

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The point is that it is only an £8.4Bn cost because the idea of giving everyone help with energy bill is stupid.

Hands up whether you think people with six figure salaries should get a £300 energy cost rebate? Hands up anyone who thinks they should get the same as someone on minimum wage?

Hands up who thinks this actually policy, never mind long term.

 

[BoldonLad]

The point is that it is only an £8.4Bn cost because the idea of giving everyone help with energy bill is stupid.

Hands up whether you think people with six figure salaries should get a £300 energy cost rebate? Hands up anyone who thinks they should get the same as someone on minimum wage?

Given the relatively small number of people in the first category (6 figure salary) and the relatively large number of people in the second category (minimum wage), I would need to know the cost of withholding the allowance, if I were making a sensible decision, despite the apparent logic of withholding the allowance. I would also probably consider alternative means of "clawing it back" the allowance via existing mechanisms (for example income tax or NI), and the cost implications.

Probably explains why I would never have made a Government Minister or Senior Civil Servant.