Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

The U.N. Reports do exactly this. Just because you haven't read them doesn't mean this work hasn't been done. It's all enshrined in the psris accord. We've literally 20-30 years I think it is of burning left at the current rate.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

 

Again, you don't have to sell this to me - hell, think what a great deal of my posting on here concerns?

 

My point is that we need a clear and detailed list of predictions (including timelines and locations) to show to the public, as well as a detailed action plan that everyone can understand. Communicating the necessity of what needs to be done is so important on this one, and right now some people (either through ignorance or flat out malice) simply aren't listening.

[Kopfkino]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Oh come on, it's not 2006, you might even have got away with this comment in the Miliband years but it's laughable in 2018 to throw this around.

 

Labour currently has a member of parliament suspended for violent sexist and homophobic comments, scores of members up and down the country being investigated for everything from anti-semitism to racism and has a shadow chancellor prepared to stand on a stage and repeat comments about lynching female members of the government.

 

If the Tories are "The Nasty Party" god knows what word you'll need to come up with for the current opposition.

 

I think Oliver Kamm got it yesterday - reactionary, nativist, and thuggish. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think Oliver Kamm got it yesterday - reactionary, nativist, and thuggish. 

Ah, Kopf, been meaning to catch you. Had a chat with a RL friend regarding carbon tax yesterday as a means of getting folks to shift energy generation from nonrenewable to renewable. You're well versed on the economics lark so what's your take - viable, and if so what form should it take?

[Guest]

We can't keep this thread going without another circular argument about Brexit:

 

Brexit 'like blowing up a bridge', Canadian trade expert tells MPs

Earlier I referred to Christophe Bondy, senior counsel to Canada when it was negotiating the Canada-EU free trade deal (Ceta), telling MPs that if the UK left the single market, it would face trade barriers with the EU, regardless of what any free trade deal said. Bondy was giving evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.

This is what Bondy said about the disadvantages of a free trade agreement.

With a free trade agreement, you have regulatory autonomy, but you have borders. For Canada it was a huge step forward to get rid of the walls that tariff barriers, for example, create, or rules that so no Canadian need apply, lots of those things. That’s great. But you step over the border and you have to show that you are compliant with the local rules in terms of the provision of services. You have to show that your permits meet the compliance rules in that new regulatory space. And in practice that can be a significant barrier.

In a trading arrangement, if that’s what the UK wants, if it just wants a free trade agreement, it wants to retain complete regulatory autonomy, it can do that, but there will be trade barriers, in the sense of those regulatory conformity issues.

Bondy also compared Brexit to blowing up a bridge. He told the MPs:

A free trade agreement is like two parties are on either side of a river and are considering building a bridge across that river because they think it will be in their economic benefit. And that’s what the Ceta does. And I think it does provide for Canada and the EU real economic benefits.

What the UK situation with the EU right now is that that bridge has been there for 45 years. Communities have been built up on either side of it. There are buildings on the bridge. And you are deciding what part of it you want to blow up without bankrupting yourself.

Two organisations fighting Brexit have said Bondy’s evidence is significant.

Open Britain, which says it is fighting against a hard Brexit, put out this response from the Labour MP Ian Murray.

David Davis says he wants a Canada-plus-plus-plus deal, but the message from Canada’s trade negotiator is very clear: the best deal we could get is to stay in the single market and customs union.

The Canada-style deal that is actually on offer from the EU would be disastrous for our country, and the government knows it. The prime minister said in Florence that it would damage our economy, and the chancellor says it ‘does not even remotely replicate the access we have as an EU member.’

And Best for Britain, which is campaigning for a second Brexit referendum, put out this statement from the Lib Dem MP Tom Brake.

Mr Bondy, who knows more about trade than virtually anyone in the world, is bluntly restating the blindingly obvious - the arbitrary red lines set by PM May are a guarantee that the UK will have a poorer trade deal after Brexit than the one we have now.

This is the first time ever that a country is seeking to secure a worse trade deal than the one it currently holds.

[Guest MattP]

Good news.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Good news.

 

Can't see it being revisited for a generation, if ever tbh

[Guest]

Ridiculous. Surely the owners of the building must be acting illegally?

 

Residents of tower with Grenfell-style cladding told they must foot £2m bill

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/citiscape-croydon-2m-recladding-bill-prompted-grenfell-disaster?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Innovindil]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Ridiculous. Surely the owners of the building must be acting illegally?

 

Residents of tower with Grenfell-style cladding told they must foot £2m bill

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/citiscape-croydon-2m-recladding-bill-prompted-grenfell-disaster?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Has to be. Asking for general building upkeep, sure thing. Saying "30 grand each or you'll burn to death" is taking the piss. 

[Strokes]

41 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Ridiculous. Surely the owners of the building must be acting illegally?

 

Residents of tower with Grenfell-style cladding told they must foot £2m bill

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/citiscape-croydon-2m-recladding-bill-prompted-grenfell-disaster?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

That’s disgusting, I would have thought they are legally obligated to do it. 

[lifted*fox]

Edited 17 January 2018 by lifted*fox
learn about pigeons

[Buce]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Ridiculous. Surely the owners of the building must be acting illegally?

 

Residents of tower with Grenfell-style cladding told they must foot £2m bill

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/citiscape-croydon-2m-recladding-bill-prompted-grenfell-disaster?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

38 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Has to be. Asking for general building upkeep, sure thing. Saying "30 grand each or you'll burn to death" is taking the piss. 

 

31 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s disgusting, I would have thought they are legally obligated to do it. 

 

I'm not so sure that the owner is legally obliged - the residents are leaseholders, not tenants.

 

No question that the cvnt is morally obliged, though, and he's worth 100's of millions.

[Guest]

Chris Grayling AGAIN

 

Private probation firms face huge losses despite £342m 'bailout'

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/17/private-probation-companies-face-huge-losses-despite-342m-bailout?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[lifted*fox]

This is now a pigeon thread.

 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

This is now a pigeon thread.

 

Unfortunately your last post promised pigeon facts bit supplied no such detail when clicked upon. You, sir, are birdbrained.

[lifted*fox]

[Sharpe's Fox]

[ajthefox]

54 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

This is now a pigeon thread.

 

I've already learnt more from that image than half this sodding thread.

[Kopfkino]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, Kopf, been meaning to catch you. Had a chat with a RL friend regarding carbon tax yesterday as a means of getting folks to shift energy generation from nonrenewable to renewable. You're well versed on the economics lark so what's your take - viable, and if so what form should it take?

This is something I read up on a bit maybe 18 months ago. Forgive me if I misremember a couple of things cos I can't find it again.

 

I personally would say it's a potentially smart way to go about it. The problem now is we're free to pollute the atmosphere at a cost to society but no cost to the polluters so there is very little incentive to stop polluting. I've seen it described as theft - it takes say clean air from people without compensating them for that. Currently, you would say that the incentive is to produce energy using carbon sources because its monetarily quite cheap but that doesn't capture the cost to society, carbon production is priced at 0 and demand is effectively infinite. So from what I've seen, economists broadly agree with the idea of capping carbon emissions and using a credit trading scheme to determine the cost of carbon. It's just creating a market where there previously hasn't been one. Caps demand and encourages innovation as its the only way to cut your cost. I think Congress has dismissed it and I think I'm right in saying the European scheme hasn't gone particularly well(?). Then there's a carbon tax, which is greeted with a bit more hesitation all around but still economists would broadly agree. You're not so much creating a market as forcing the current market to price in non-monetary costs. Similar effect in the fact the demand for carbon falls and switching to less carbon is the only way to cut cost (probably more so than with credits). I don't think anyone cannot be troubled by the fact pollution, essentially destruction is free, and a cost needs to be placed on that.

 

The only way that I can see to design a tax policy is to work out the cost to society of carbon (think its estimated at $40/ton but there's variation) and levy that on producers. It would probably have to be increasing with time as well given the cost of extra carbon will increase the more we continue to add(?)/also to continue forcing the issue. This is what they tried to introduce in Washington State and have done in British Columbia (but not as high). I can't see any other way of doing it.

 

By the way, you should check out the BC example as its the only real world example we have (Australia tried it apparently but it was too unpopular). In BC, it initially didn't impact growth and cut carbon emissions by more than in the rest of Canada. But taking out Alberta, it wasn't that big a difference in the end. 

 

Is it viable? I don't think so.

 

Firstly, how do you actually put a price on the cost of carbon? Underprice it and you fail with complete capture so you lose possible incentives. Overprice it and there's too much of an excess burden of the tax for producers and you stifle both growth and ability to develop new technologies. Admittedly, price it right and you'll get far more investment than you could ever get now. Scientists don't truly know the exact damage of our carbon emissions. Take the IPCC reports. In 2007 the bounds were 2-4 degrees, by 2013 that had become 1.5-4 degrees. Also the report from Oxford (?) academics that suggests we have more time than we previously thought, thus making the cost of carbon less. I'm skeptical of any forecasts. I take any long-term economic forecast with a pinch of salt, it's doing the impossible. Whilst the science of climate change might be more reliable and harder to affect than an economic forecast, I tend to have similar skepticism for climate forecasts. Whilst it's less specific than the weather, we still aren't able to forecast weather with much reliability further out than a few months at best. Simply, there's too much uncertainty to create a tax that is efficient. 

 

Secondly, it would have to be revenue neutral. The cost would be far too high to not compensate. It would stifle innovation and sink GDP growth and living standards. Okay maybe government could do it itself. But most importantly, the cost would be passed on to consumers and it would hugely regressive so it would hit the poor too hard not to compensate. Existing petrol taxes are hard enough on the poor as it is, this would add to those costs further. Then the question is how you compensate. The RFF (pro a carbon tax) forecast growth rates with a revenue-neutral $30/ton carbon tax. It looked at fours ways of refunding carbon tax receipts; a capital or corporation tax cut, an income tax cut, a cut in consumption taxes, or a lump-sum transfer back to citizens. The only one that didn't harm GDP growth was a cut in capital taxes (this may well change given US tax reforms). I'm not sure it would be desirable or politically possible to convince people that a regressive tax that heavily redistributes money from the poor to big, rich corporations is a good idea. And once you start complicating tax systems to avoid that, they become more and more ineffective. Tbh if anything, it shows the harm capital taxes do in the first place.

 

The other thing to add to that but is slightly different is it worth it for us to sacrifice growth and living standards now when those in the future will be much richer than us. Yes okay, we should preserve the wonder that is our planet for future generations, and not be pig ignorant about health consequences etc just because they will likely be richer in spite of climate change. I don't agree with Lord Lawson at all on climate change, nor do I necessarily trust his figures but he raises a reasonable point that even with worst case scenarios for climate change citizens of the future will be 2.6x better off than us compared to 2.7 and in developing countries 8.5x instead of 9.5x. Of course that ignores if its worse than we expect (more than possible) and I'm still skeptical of any such forecast's reliability, it may well underplay the damage to the wealth of those in the future. But it's a valid enough point, it makes the tax all the more regressive for people now. And obviously, not everything is about money, but when it comes to taxes its hard to escape it.

 

And the final reason I'll say for why it isn't viable, politicians. Politicians love to be seen to be doing something, it's what gets them votes. A tax is always a hard sell for a start. Big infrastructure projects or direct action such as pledging millions of turbines have more glamour and political appeal (increasing as old people die so more put green policies at the top of their preferences). Even if it started revenue neutral, it would soon be eroded (as in BC). As green credentials become a bigger vote winner, the more influence politicians would look to exert. Rather than leaving a tax to those that know, they'd alter it, make it complex, go on a big spending spree with it. If you created a carbon market, they'd love fiddling with it. Politicians are always the barrier to good policy. And I don't say that solely out of my belief in the free-market. I've seen good policy proposals come from left-wing economists that are ruined by politicians meddling because they need to win votes. For example, TfL runs transport far better than DfT because the Transport Secretary has too much influence whereas TfL is run by people knowing what they're doing.

 

So there is widespread support amongst economists for some kind of carbon pricing as a way to transition away from carbon sources and its a strong argument because even if you are a climate change skeptic, you must be uncomfortable by pollution being free. There is definitely a case for imposing a cost of carbon, basic market supply and demand theory is all you need for that. But widespread support amongst economists doesn't count for much. Poll taxes are not far from being universally supported by economists but Thatcher showed it to be politically unviable (ofc ignoring the BBC license fee which is actually a poll tax but nobody seems to see it). The Washington State example showed its infeasibility. You had environmental groups joining forces with climate change skeptics to defeat the vote because of the revenue neutral issue and the potentially regressive nature of it. I think when that happens you know its probably unlikely to be the solution. 

 

Edit: Yeah I forgot one thing. It's great if you can get international agreement on it, or at least say EU agreement, but it's that expensive that it's gonna have a pretty hard effect on trade if not.

Edited 18 January 2018 by Kopfkino

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

This is now a pigeon thread.

 

 

Should we be taking any inference from the pigeons leaning to the left, compared to those looking regimentally to the right?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Should we be taking any inference from the pigeons leaning to the left, compared to those looking regimentally to the right?

The birds looking to the left certainly seem way cooler. The top is casually looking out of the page and the bottom one is pulling a funny face at his oppo.

 

As for the right facers, the bottom one was clearly born with a silver spoon in his mouth, shown via his aloofness. The top one shows that they'll swallow anything. 

[Strokes]

35 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The birds looking to the left certainly seem way cooler. The top is casually looking out of the page and the bottom one is pulling a funny face at his oppo.

 

As for the right facers, the bottom one was clearly born with a silver spoon in his mouth, shown via his aloofness. The top one shows that they'll swallow anything. 

That is an astute observation, those on the right do look cooler.

[Rogstanley]

For me the fact that all four pigeons are content to hang out together despite clear differences in colour means they’re all lefties. If any of them were right wingers you’d expect them to have drawn an articial boundary around themselves, loaded up that boundary with deadly weapons and put posters up warning that any immigrant pigeon scum will be shot on site.

Edited 18 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

For me the fact that all four pigeons are clearly content to hang out together despite clear differences in colour means they’re all lefties. If any of them were right wingers you’d expect them to have drawn and articial boundary around themselves, loaded up that boundary with deadly weapons and put posters up warning that any immigrant pigeon scum will be shot on site.

True. Plus three of the birds have obvious disabilities and would have seen their millet significantly rationed by the right unless they agreed to work they were physically incapable of.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

For me the fact that all four pigeons are content to hang out together despite clear differences in colour means they’re all lefties. If any of them were right wingers you’d expect them to have drawn an articial boundary around themselves, loaded up that boundary with deadly weapons and put posters up warning that any immigrant pigeon scum will be shot on site.

 

I don't think you're reading the body language correctly.

 

The bottom two in particular look quite confrontational to me.

[Strokes]

53 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I don't think you're reading the body language correctly.

 

The bottom two in particular look quite confrontational to me.

Top right looks like he perched on top of ivory tower tbf.