Corbyn pledges free bus travel for under 25s

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:12 pm

Ahh if we’re analysing the manifesto of each party let’s look at the detail of the Tory one... what, you mean there wasn’t any...? oops....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:12 pm

Inchy wrote:Surely bus travel should be means tested?

Never understood why a millionaire pensioner gets a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance while a struggling single mother has to pay

Agree in principle but the problem is that means testing adds a lot of admin that costs a lot of money and tends to outweigh any benefit. It's the same argument about clamping down harder on the minority of people that manage to fiddle benefits - the savings are marginal compared to the cost of doing it.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:14 pm

I’m amazed so many Burnley fans are Daily Mail readers

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:21 pm

There's an article in today's FT adviser highlighting the huge disparity between the generations...

: 1523535591338608961162.jpg (3.84 MiB) Viewed 2268 times

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:21 pm

The problem with Corbins policies is that he doesn't have any actual policies. He has aspirations, he correctly points out in injustices in the current World. These are not policies. That is the difference between a campaign and a potential Government. A government has to have credible workable solutions to the problems, they have to be specific in nature
It was mentioned earlier for example about immigration, someone said Corbin wants an open border, someone else said that was rubbish. So what is Corbins policy on immigration, is it controlled immigration like UKIP, otherwise free movement as in the EU. Nobody knows, his EU policy is equally confusing, a new Customs Union?? What does he mean? How will he get what he wants, we will never know as we do not know what he wants. His Tax and spend pledges are a complete nonsense, only Corbin and his shadow chancellor have the nerve to say any different. The economists in his own party laugh at these pledges. Without going into the details, his Tax raising policy will be nowhere near enough to pay for his promised spending
I have posted before, all politicians con the public, what I find so objectionable about Corbin is that he is playing on the fears of the most vulnerable, promising a dream he knows he can't deliver. He is a front for a very nasty extreme political movement that will not tolerate any opposition. Just like they have taken control of the Labour Party so they can't be moved, they will do the same to the national political system once they have power

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:23 pm

It's spelled Corbyn

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:28 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It's spelled Corbyn

You are correct, but my phone doesn't know that

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:28 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:You're not a fan are you Lord Rothbury - must be your aristocratic background - you would be a target of course..

The amount of anti -Corbyn stuff on here in recent weeks is laughable..there are some very scared people running around - taking another look at the last Labour manifesto I'm not surprised...there are some very good policies in there.

post 2...well done nil for quickly shooting that one down - another clown trying to pass off his lousy opinion as a fact.

post 7...'immigration open to one and all'. No it isn't. That is a 100% lie. Why do you write such trash? Is pushing pensions up a bad idea..?

Looking at the policy itself - of course it's a sensible idea. Have you not noticed the appalling levels of inequality in this rich wealthy country?
- what is wrong with a measure that gives a bit of financial help to a group who are down the bottom end of the income pile?

There are other ways of looking at this...imagine 55 young people getting on a [free bus] to go about their business for the day OR alternatively they each borrow their mum's car for the day, to do the same thing.

1] Which of the two options is better in terms of keeping traffic pollution down?
2] Which is better in terms of keeping traffic congestion down?
3] Which is better in terms of sensibly using the world's scarce resources [oil, petrol, diesel] and ensuring they last as long as possible?
4] Which situation will deliver less traffic accidents - 55 cars or one bus?

This is a sensible policy [I have never heard opposition to pensioners getting free bus passes..?] - it is a sound [slightly] redistributive policy which broadly will be funded by those who have more, and benefit those most, who have less. Is that not a good thing?

Yes, brilliant idea just like all his other "Policies." A free puppy to every household. Just one small problem.........

ITS BULL$HIT!

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:36 pm

'YELLOW SUBMARINES FOR THE RED ARMY"

starting_11 · Post by **starting_11** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:20 pm

I like it how Corbyn wants to drag everybody to the bottom instead of dragging the bottom up.

If he came to power, I'd be emigrating. Mind you, my house would be worth **** all come that day!

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:39 pm

Lancaster - this thread illustrates why Corbyn and Labour aren't further ahead in the polls. When some people claim Labour will never be able to raise the taxes they need to fulfill campaign pledges, yet the current lot have lowered taxes for the richest, and that money has gone straight offshore. "Labour have no policies" (says someone else) - I can't make you read the manifesto, but for whichever shortcomings it was a great deal more detailed than the Tory one. "Labour are in dissaray" - and the Tories are delivering strong and stable leadership? "Labour will just bung the kids stuff" - and that billion pounds to the DUP was just down the back of the sofa? This is how it is. But when the next election comes along the media will have no choice but to be less impartial, the election will highlight the failure of austerity, and the marked difference of the Labour approach, and this time Labour will be starting on an even footing, and with more activists to do the leg work. I'm not worried.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:40 pm

Ooops - more impartial rather than less.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:44 pm

Cool

I would be though, as this government cannot get any more incompetent (can it?) You should really be ahead in the polls, and by quite some way.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:48 pm

There's a picture of the old hag Toynbee saying that young people deserve buss passes. The comment to go with the photograph is 'That'll go down well with the ton-up club!'

Strap the bitch to a TT racing motorbike and sidecar and unlock the straps at 190 mph, just at the bend with a cliff edge...

... Oh yeah and safe standing for the crippled generation.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:55 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Ooops - more impartial rather than less.

Freudian slip

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:03 pm

Pstotto wrote:There's a picture of the old hag Toynbee saying that young people deserve buss passes. The comment to go with the photograph is 'That'll go down well with the ton-up club!'

Strap the bitch to a TT racing motorbike and sidecar and unlock the straps at 190 mph, just at the bend with a cliff edge...

... Oh yeah and safe standing for the crippled generation.

Who would undo the straps?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:34 pm

starting_11 wrote:I like it how Corbyn wants to drag everybody to the bottom instead of dragging the bottom up.

I'm no big fan of Corbyn, but I fail to see how suggesting we should have free bus travel for the under 25s will "drag us to the bottom".
I really can't see any negatives to this policy if a way can be found to fund it. People of that generation, especially those from poorer backgrounds, need as much help as it is realistically possible to offer them, in order for them to get around, for their education, training, work etc.
In some cases nowadays the cost of travelling to work almost removes the incentive to work, and if this scheme discourages car use then that's another huge plus.
What we do need - of course - is much improved bus services in some parts of the UK, and this would cost a lot more.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:49 pm

24 year old graduates working in the City get a free bus pass, the 40 year old cleaning their toilets has to pay?

PLTMGMBJ · Post by **PLTMGMBJ** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:57 pm

I'm all for 'anyone' getting subsidised for travel to interviews as long as it is for just that and it's outside of walking distance. That's acceptable. There's a part of my politics that is almost left wing in that I think employers should at least part subsidise employees who struggle to get to work. It's mutually beneficial. I don't understand why perfectly healthy under 25's should get free bus passes. They should be able to walk to their destination if they can't afford it. I remember when I was younger and having to be prudent with my money. Walking to and from Doncaster and Selby. It's a good 9 hour slog one way, but when needs must. 2 Miles is certainly within walking distance for any able bodied person of any age.
I certainly don't see why a perfectly healthy youngster should get a free bus pass. Likewise I don't see why schoolkids get lower prices. Unless it's not within a reasonable walking distance or you live in Royston Vasey. Most schools are within a mile or two of where a child lives. My Primary school was two miles away and I walked to it on my own and I was only 6 or 7. There's common sense reasons to give people looking for work a free pass. Giving kids a free pass so they can spend more on junk food or whatever when they get to their destination, isn't going to help this apparent child obesity crisis either. People should try walking. Believe it or not, for many thousands of years people have got by on foot!

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:00 pm

PLTMGMBJ wrote:Likewise I don't see why schoolkids get lower prices.

Why do kids get lower prices at Burnley games?

Why are kids charges lower for going to Alton Towers?

Woodleyclaret · Post by **Woodleyclaret** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:12 pm

He needs to be backing a state owned bank offering 100% mortgages to really help people get on the housing ladder.
Too often he has got sidetracked talking about issues most people dont give a monkeys about.Cutting foreign aid to extremist regimes like Zimbabwe and Pakistan would release millions to create this bank.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:13 pm

Woodleyclaret wrote:He needs to be backing a state owned bank offering 100% mortgages to really help people get on the housing ladder.
Too often he has got sidetracked talking about issues most people dont give a monkeys about.Cutting foreign aid to extremist regimes like Zimbabwe and Pakistan would release millions to create this bank.

He doesn't need to just back 100% mortgages, something needs to be done about the ridiculous house prices.

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:24 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Why do kids get lower prices at Burnley games?

Why are kids charges lower for going to Alton Towers?

Under 25s?

I think you'll find children have always been subsidised and rightly so but this is just an empty and meaningless bribe. The bloke is a bigger idiot than the idiots who actually believe any of his "Policies"

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:31 pm

Andrew JB
It was I who said that Labour do not have policies. I also said that all politicians con the public, that most certainly includes the Tories. I agree with the headline sentiments of Labour, what I am saying is that they are unachievable and JC knows it. Whenever he is asked about the details of of the pledges, he will not answer the question. As I said, pointing out the current problems is not a policy, also much of the time in government you have to deal with two rights and sometimes go against your beliefs for the greater good, the extremists in the current Labour Party are so entrenched in their ideology that such common sense will not apply, causing great harm

walter the softy · Post by **walter the softy** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:37 pm

Falcon wrote:Putting politics to one side, subsidised public transport is a brilliant idea from a green perspective. The less cars on the road the better.

When I look at all the cars clogging up the roads in Britain and that so many of them just have one person in the car, it really makes me wonder what you can do to help the situation outside of subsidising public transport. To my mind, it a good start. I would really like to see all local busses free (or at least a payment of, say, a pound no matter where you are going) as everyone benefits from it. Less cars on the road means less jams, less pollution, better access to towns for those who are not so well off. Of course it will cost money for the taxpayer but it would be worth it in my opinion when you consider the benefits.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:41 pm

bob-the-scutter wrote:Under 25s?

I think you'll find children have always been subsidised and rightly so but this is just an empty and meaningless bribe. The bloke is a bigger idiot than the idiots who actually believe any of his "Policies"

I was responding to someone saying children shouldn't get lower fares on buses.

READ.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:51 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:Freudian slip

A Freudian slip is something I wear under my dress, when my mother comes over.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:15 pm

gtclaret wrote:Andrew JB
It was I who said that Labour do not have policies. I also said that all politicians con the public, that most certainly includes the Tories. I agree with the headline sentiments of Labour, what I am saying is that they are unachievable and JC knows it. Whenever he is asked about the details of of the pledges, he will not answer the question. As I said, pointing out the current problems is not a policy, also much of the time in government you have to deal with two rights and sometimes go against your beliefs for the greater good, the extremists in the current Labour Party are so entrenched in their ideology that such common sense will not apply, causing great harm

It's a matter of perspective. Labour have said they'll renationalise railways and utilities. I see this based on the failure of privatisation (prices so much higher, and service in many areas not good). A lot of profit has been taken out of these things, and taken right out of the country. Pointless (look at the link below for just one water company owner). The Tories are being ideological in resisting re-nationalisation. Austerity has also failed, as has trickle down economics. Labour will end or reverse these things. If the Tories were more pragmatic they'd find a way to get out of them too, but ideology binds them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These are some of the stark choices the public will face at the next election. And May won't be able to hold the Tories together. Her own ineptitude in putting an 'environment of hostility' in matters of immigration (which has done nothing but waste huge sums of taxpayer's money, causing stress to countless people here since they were children, and achieving a losing position in fifty percent of appeals (I suppose the Tories get the racist vote for being nasty), will be reminding the public of how crap she is, and I can't see who would replace her that wouldn't also be tarred with the ordure the Tories have piled up during their time in office.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:04 pm

So the old career communist, Corbyn, believes 16 year olds are mature enough to vote by the age of 16.

Yet he doesn't believe their responsible to pay for their own bus fare at 24!?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:20 pm

AndrewJB wrote:It's a matter of perspective. Labour have said they'll renationalise railways and utilities. I see this based on the failure of privatisation (prices so much higher, and service in many areas not good). A lot of profit has been taken out of these things, and taken right out of the country.

If you can point to a time when the railways and electricity companies were profitable and efficient, I'll be impressed. According to the site below, next to last column, electricity prices were at their highest from 1976 to 1995 (privatisation happened in 1990) and then halved, before climbing back upwards - encouraged by renewable subsidies, the refusal to use coal, and VAT - to about 20% less than their peak.

As for the railways, you don't remember British Rail in the 1970's, I take it?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... 20-to-2011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just a thought - if Labour are going to renationalise these foreign-owned entities, does that mean that vast amounts of capital at market prices are going to be flowing out of the country? Or does it mean the foreign investors will be given a few pence in the pound? I don't think either would be a good idea.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:22 pm

PLTMGMBJ wrote:There's a part of my politics that is almost left wing in that I think employers should at least part subsidise employees who struggle to get to work. It's mutually beneficial.

The problem with that is that it's making it more expensive for employers to employ a poor person than it is to employ a well-off person.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:09 pm

The way things are now it's the taxpayer who are subsidising poor people's wages. Huge corporations are not paying people enough to live on and it's the benefits system that has to make up the difference.
Then of course it's these people whose benefits get cut when right-wing governments whine that we can't afford their benefits. The government could raise taxes on these companies to pay for these subsidies but if they do the Mail and Sun would call them anti-business communists, and idiots would believe them.

And of course when the left wants to make it easier for some of these underpaid people to even travel (because they can't afford a car on their pathetic wages), discussions like this happen. The right's useful idiots will call him Comrade Corbyn just for wanting to let young people receive the same benefit as people who've had their entire lives to accumulate wealth but haven't.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:16 pm

James Bond would press a release button, UTB. There would be an ejector seat-type contraption on the motorcycle, but a specific corner on the Isle of Man circuit might suffice without too much innovative technology.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:21 pm

People who've had their entire lives to accumulate wealth but havent have probably lived on low wages all their lives. Its a good idea to thnk before sharing your wisdom sometimes.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:25 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:People who've had their entire lives to accumulate wealth but havent have probably lived on low wages all their lives. Its a good idea to thnk before sharing your wisdom sometimes.

I've no doubt that's true. Why would you think i didn't know that? Or why do you think i haven't considered that?

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:25 pm

dsr wrote:
Just a thought - if Labour are going to renationalise these foreign-owned entities, does that mean that vast amounts of capital at market prices are going to be flowing out of the country? Or does it mean the foreign investors will be given a few pence in the pound? I don't think either would be a good idea.

Obviously you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to how it had been proposed to bring them back under state control.

They'd be taken in as contracts ended.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:41 pm

dsr wrote:If you can point to a time when the railways and electricity companies were profitable and efficient, I'll be impressed. According to the site below, next to last column, electricity prices were at their highest from 1976 to 1995 (privatisation happened in 1990) and then halved, before climbing back upwards - encouraged by renewable subsidies, the refusal to use coal, and VAT - to about 20% less than their peak.

As for the railways, you don't remember British Rail in the 1970's, I take it?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... 20-to-2011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just a thought - if Labour are going to renationalise these foreign-owned entities, does that mean that vast amounts of capital at market prices are going to be flowing out of the country? Or does it mean the foreign investors will be given a few pence in the pound? I don't think either would be a good idea.

" encouraged by renewable subsidies, the refusal to use coal, and VAT - to about 20% less than their peak."

What makes you think the wholesale cost increases (because we have to rely on other countries for our fuel, some of them less-than-friendly) have had less of an impact than renewable subsidies? Or VAT?

And of course we should refuse to use coal. Only a complete moron thinks we should sacrifice having a habitable planet just to save a few quid a year on our electricity bills.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:56 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:24 year old graduates working in the City get a free bus pass, the 40 year old cleaning their toilets has to pay?

Anomalies like this are unavoidable, unless you make things means tested.
There are plenty of millionaires on state benefits.
The majority under the age of 25 will be amongst the less well-off, and they are also the group that rely on buses most.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:03 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:" encouraged by renewable subsidies, the refusal to use coal, and VAT - to about 20% less than their peak."

What makes you think the wholesale cost increases (because we have to rely on other countries for our fuel, some of them less-than-friendly) have had less of an impact than renewable subsidies? Or VAT?

And of course we should refuse to use coal. Only a complete moron thinks we should sacrifice having a habitable planet just to save a few quid a year on our electricity bills.

That's another reason why prices vary, of course. I wasn't ranking them. And I didn't say that we should use coal, only that not using it is a contributory factor to the price going up. Just as I didn't say whether renewable subsidies were a good thing or that charging VAT on electricity was a good thing - only that it puts the price up.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:13 pm

dsr wrote:That's another reason why prices vary, of course. I wasn't ranking them. And I didn't say that we should use coal, only that not using it is a contributory factor to the price going up. Just as I didn't say whether renewable subsidies were a good thing or that charging VAT on electricity was a good thing - only that it puts the price up.

Nah. I know your style pretty well. You were using right-wing talking points to assign blame on 'lefty' policies like rising energy prices on renewable subsidies, lack of coal and tax. If you were offering an objective opinion there's no way you'd have excluded rising wholesale prices since that's so obviously the biggest cause of rising prices.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:34 pm

[quote="hampsteadclaret"]You're not a fan are you Lord Rothbury - must be your aristocratic background - you would be a target of course..

The amount of anti -Corbyn stuff on here in recent weeks is laughable..there are some very scared people running around - taking another look at the last Labour manifesto I'm not surprised...there are some very good policies in there.

post 2...well done nil for quickly shooting that one down - another clown trying to pass off his lousy opinion as a fact.

post 7...'immigration open to one and all'. No it isn't. That is a 100% lie. Why do you write such trash? Is pushing pensions up a bad idea..?

Looking at the policy itself - of course it's a sensible idea. Have you not noticed the appalling levels of inequality in this rich wealthy country?
- what is wrong with a measure that gives a bit of financial help to a group who are down the bottom end of the income pile?

There are other ways of looking at this...imagine 55 young people getting on a [free bus] to go about their business for the day OR alternatively they each borrow their mum's car for the day, to do the same thing.

1] Which of the two options is better in terms of keeping traffic pollution down?
2] Which is better in terms of keeping traffic congestion down?
3] Which is better in terms of sensibly using the world's scarce resources [oil, petrol, diesel] and ensuring they last as long as possible?
4] Which situation will deliver less traffic accidents - 55 cars or one bus?

This is a sensible policy [I have never heard opposition to pensioners getting free bus passes..?] - it is a sound [slightly] redistributive policy which broadly will be funded by those who have more, and benefit those most, who have less. Is that not a good thing?[/quot

You surely can't be serious about your comparison to bus passes for pensioners to this proposal? Can you. It's a ridiculous comparison. Try waling at 75 compared to 20. Its just as stupid a comment as most of Corbyns barmy ideas.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:54 pm

Stayingup wrote:
You surely can't be serious about your comparison to bus passes for pensioners to this proposal? Can you. It's a ridiculous comparison. Try walking at 75 compared to 20. Its just as stupid a comment as most of Corbyns barmy ideas.

There's nothing wrong with the comparison. We're talking about the subsidisation of public transport for two groups of people based on income bracket. Poor young people need to be able to get around just as much as poor old people. And you'd be getting more back by subsidising poor young people's travel since they'll use it to get to work. Pensioners won't.

If you want to talk about barmy idea, imagine having a public transport system that becomes privatised but where loss-making routes are subsidised by the tax payer. And then when that subsidy disappears the route disappears with it. Privatised profits and subsidised losses. But free public transport for young adults who while working full-time on minimum wage can't afford their own transport - that's what's "barmy". Give it a rest.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:09 pm

Money on Free bus travel for under 25’s or the bombing of another Middle East county I mean has Corbyn really thought this through?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Nah. I know your style pretty well. You were using right-wing talking points to assign blame on 'lefty' policies like rising energy prices on renewable subsidies, lack of coal and tax. If you were offering an objective opinion there's no way you'd have excluded rising wholesale prices since that's so obviously the biggest cause of rising prices.

Of course you do. You know everything pretty well. You know that what I write isn't what I mean and you know exactly what I do mean but haven't written. It must make it so much easier to reply when you don't have to reply to what I wrote, only what you imagine what I might have written.

Why would VAT on electricity be a right wing talking point? The Tories introduced it, and Labour would have repealed it but the EU wouldn't let them.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:" encouraged by renewable subsidies, the refusal to use coal, and VAT - to about 20% less than their peak."

What makes you think the wholesale cost increases (because we have to rely on other countries for our fuel, some of them less-than-friendly) have had less of an impact than renewable subsidies? Or VAT?

And of course we should refuse to use coal. Only a complete moron thinks we should sacrifice having a habitable planet just to save a few quid a year on our electricity bills.

Hi IT, hope you don't mind me picking your quote to add a few comments on the price of retail gas and power exchange that you are dsr are having.

1) Unless my memory is muddled, VAT has been charged at (only) 5% on retail gas and power for many years. Again from memory, I think this was the lowest the UK was allowed to go because of EU VAT rules;

2) There's been no "ban" on burning coal in UK to generate electricity, it's just that the carbon credits have pushed up the cost of generating elec with coal. There is, of course, a ban on coal fired power stations from 2025 (unless someone finds how carbon capture and storage can be made to work). There's also no ban in many of the "leading green economies" such as Germany - they burn the dirtiest coal there - and there is high demand for coal across much of Asia. World wide coal prices have been low for many years.

3) UK burns natural gas from (a) UK north sea production, (b) imports from Norway (again) north sea production, (c) imports from Netherlands production; (d) some trade between the Bacton-Zeebrugge interconnector (though that also allows UK nat.gas to flow to Belgium/Europe and (e) LNG imports from a number of production regions, including Qatar and Algeria and (not sure of volume) US Gulf Coast.

US fracking of natural gas resulted in very dramatic fall in US nat gas prices from 2007 onwards. World nat gas prices are lower now than they were before Fukushima. This nuclear disaster and switch off of nuclear generation in Japan resulted in big new demand for LNG - just as new projects were coming on stream in Australia and elsewhere.

4) UK doesn't consume a lot of Russian nat gas - though a lot of main land Europe is dependent on this supply.

5) Gordon Brown was the Chancellor when renewable energy subsidies were paid for my additional charges on retail consumers.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:15 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The way things are now it's the taxpayer who are subsidising poor people's wages. Huge corporations are not paying people enough to live on and it's the benefits system that has to make up the difference.
Then of course it's these people whose benefits get cut when right-wing governments whine that we can't afford their benefits. The government could raise taxes on these companies to pay for these subsidies but if they do the Mail and Sun would call them anti-business communists, and idiots would believe them.

And of course when the left wants to make it easier for some of these underpaid people to even travel (because they can't afford a car on their pathetic wages), discussions like this happen. The right's useful idiots will call him Comrade Corbyn just for wanting to let young people receive the same benefit as people who've had their entire lives to accumulate wealth but haven't.

All the above, and the newspapers pave the way for them. Ed Milliband was a dangerous Commie for wanting to cap energy bills, but Theresa May was "on the side of working people" for the same policy two years later. Labour was blamed for the debt and the financial crisis, and the Tories have hugely added to the debt, while not curbing the financial sector, and paying for it all on the backs of the poor - yet Labour "can't be trusted with the economy". Corbyn is somehow a terrorist friend, and a dangerous peacenik (at the same time!), whereas May is allowed to fly off the handle and get called a "steadying hand"

Despite the fact he's an open and personable man in public, Corbyn is out of touch, and somehow less prime ministerial than the present holder of the office - who would lose a charisma competition against a turnip with a sad face painted on it. It is the press who back her to such a degree, and have been rewarded by her rescinding Levesen 2. But I think things are changing, so it's not all bad.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:51 pm

In my local pub, with a vodka and coke, it's free ice cubes for the over 65s.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:04 am

Expect the next proposal from the Labour "bribery" Party, to be a fully funded programme for under 25s, who use social media, that feel they're offended, to receive free, tax payer, counselling.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:10 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Expect the next proposal from the Labour "bribery" Party, to be a fully funded programme for under 25s, who use social media, that feel they're offended, to receive free, tax payer, counselling.

When the right-wing promises to pander to right-wing voters it's "listening to the will of the people". When the left-wing do it for left-wing voters it's "bribery".

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:10 am

They need something innovative like cheap train travel for 30 year olds.