Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

New Labour government - legislative agenda

Her quitting probably doesn't move the dial much because it's her, a serial malcontent who has been publicly toying with quitting for years, long before GE24
 

In an official letter recently sent to anti-sewage groups, civil servants cited a paper by the Social Market Foundation as a reason to avoid nationalisation as part of its review of the sector. The report from 2018 was commissioned by United Utilities, Anglian Water, Severn Trent and South West Water.

The letter, sent by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to the Rivers Trust, Surfers Against Sewage, River Action UK and Greenpeace states: “The Social Market Foundation calculated the likely cost of renationalisation to be £90bn, drawing on publicly available data from Ofwat, the London Stock Exchange and the annual accounts of the water companies. Renationalisation would impose a huge burden on the public purse at a time when public finances are already stretched.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...n-england-overcharged-customers-by-up-to-15bn
Sir Dieter Helm, a leading economist, called the analysis “economically illiterate”.

Moody’s rating agency has disputed this figure and estimated that nationalisation could actually cost £14.5bn – a fraction of the analysis amount.

Earlier this month, Steve Reed, the environment secretary, announced a review into the water companies and the regulators, but said nationalisation was firmly off the table. He said it would cost “billions of pounds” and would not solve the sewage crisis.
 
we should be able to pick it up cheap then? :)

but apparently not - they're just looking for new contractors
 
He's Reform MP for Great Yarmouth, he's having a bit of a rant about the Mauritius/Chagos Islands deal and Pride Flags in Hospitals as well.
 
Good point from Bastani. And since when has ‘keeping a promise to Esther Ransom’ been a principle of good government?

It’s always worth remembering that Starmer and his entourage genuinely believe that they are ‘good at politics’, the ‘adults in the room’ and more in tune with ordinary people than Corbyn.

Nothing, it appears, could be further from the truth…there is a debate to be had about this issue, but that requires serious people and ideas. This is pathetic, very weird framing from a very odd and weird man.

 
Last edited:
Yeah that act was fucking weird. So he makes personal promises to famous people and that's how you get things heard. If it was Paul Lamb though maybe he wouldn't have had enough clout?

Weird, but maybe it resonates with some people.
 
Good point from Bastani. And since when has ‘keeping a promise to Esther Ransom’ been a principle of good government?

It’s always worth remembering that Starmer and his entourage genuinely believe that they are ‘good at politics’, the ‘adults in the room’ and more in tune with ordinary people than Corbyn.

Nothing, it appears, could be further from the truth…there is a debate to be had about this issue, but that requires serious people and ideas. This is pathetic, very weird framing from a very odd and weird man.


This government will need no outside assistance to die; it’s doing a very good job so far on its own
 

Also discussed here:

"UK chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering dropping an inheritance tax element of her non-dom crackdown despite a manifesto commitment after warnings it would cause an exodus of wealthy people and bring in little revenue ...

Dropping the measure would mark a breach of Labour’s manifesto, which stated: “We will end the use of offshore trusts to avoid inheritance tax, so that everyone who makes their home here in the UK pays their taxes here.”

UK chancellor may drop inheritance tax hit to non-doms
 
Good point from Bastani. And since when has ‘keeping a promise to Esther Ransom’ been a principle of good government?

It’s always worth remembering that Starmer and his entourage genuinely believe that they are ‘good at politics’, the ‘adults in the room’ and more in tune with ordinary people than Corbyn.

Nothing, it appears, could be further from the truth…there is a debate to be had about this issue, but that requires serious people and ideas. This is pathetic, very weird framing from a very odd and weird man.


Who knows what he has promised Sue Pollard
 
That carbon capture on a large-scale has not worked yet does not mean that it never will.
What we do know, though, is that when it has been undertaken the vast majority of the separated gas has been used to pump more oil out of oil bearing anticlines.
 
The front page lead story from today's edition of The Observer:

"Government plans to impose VAT on private schools from 1 January next year may have to be delayed because of warnings from unions, tax experts and school leaders that meeting the deadline will cause administrative chaos and teacher job losses, and put pressure on the state sector ..."

Doubts grow over Labour’s VAT plan for private schools

Elsewhere in the same newspaper appears the following:

‘The community is in the fabric of the building’: as UK pupil numbers fall, what will happen to empty schools?
 
If only there was something that existed in myriad form and already had a huge presence on earth that could remove carbon from the atmosphere and lock it up somehow.......
Yes, and not set fire to it again and claim to be helping the environment. Being "carbon neutral" means doing nothing to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
 
Yes, and not set fire to it again and claim to be helping the environment. Being "carbon neutral" means doing nothing to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Correct, but it is, as you say, neutral.
Unlike, for example digging up carbon that has been sequestered millions of years ago and then setting fire to that instead.
One is definitely an improvement on the other and since so many "carbon negative" solutions rely an awful lot on the latter in their manufacture, they should be robustly analysed when it comes to any such claims.
 
Back
Top Bottom