|
Nov 2019
10:00pm, 21 Nov 2019
58,650 posts
|
swittle
Bit far south for The Pies and their combined acrobatic skills and graphic design.
|
|
Nov 2019
8:13am, 22 Nov 2019
33,327 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Love it - as you say, childish, but a. funny and b. making an important point about how easy it is to misrepresent your opponents. At least this one is done as a very clear parody!  G
|
|
Nov 2019
9:04am, 22 Nov 2019
1,627 posts
|
JRitchie
Labour party to put a windfall tax on UK oil and gas producers, or "the polluters" as the manifesto calls us. As an Aberdonian who has invested most of his life supporting the industry its pretty demoralising for the thousands of employees, investment, the technological innovation produced in the UK, the tax contribution provided (did you know that UK oil and gas businesses still pay tax at 30% (at least). Labour need to raise taxes, I get that, they want to raise taxes from the oil and gas industry because they see it as an easy target that they won't get much negative press on, I get that too. But please don't try to wrap this through fake news as a as a penalty for businesses who do the wrong thing.
- The oil companies are some of the biggest investors in renewables and the R&D that goes into them (shell is globally the biggest spender on solar).
- The oil companies know that energy transition is coming and are moving - by all means government put in place regulation to make this happen more quickly but a tax hike is not it. (what about cancelling H/Row expansion? what about banning secondary plastic in retail, what about hiking APD, what about taxing petrol car use more)?
- The tax hike will only threaten UK jobs because it doesn't reduce the oil the UK will use. It just makes UK oil more expensive (and the UK is one of the most expensive places to get oil anyway).
Another own goal from Labour.
|
|
Nov 2019
9:24am, 22 Nov 2019
33,329 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
It's a negative for business and for jobs JR. And it's a fib to say it's just "taxing the pollution". Completely agree.
But I think rather than just taxing pulling oil out of the ground we should be legislating to not pull it out at all. And regulating its use for creating only must-have (e.g. medical use) plastics etc. And the world to focus on generating energy only from sources that doesn't kill the planet. Or our kids / grandkids won't have anywhere to live!
|
|
Nov 2019
9:39am, 22 Nov 2019
24,707 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
If you ask me th eoil windfall tax is a reasonable idea, of 40 years late. Incidentally Norway still operate a form of windfall tax on oil, but also hydro-electric power, but that is based off of laws that in place to force them to produce power at a reasonable price, that price also being subject to competition by suppliers.
Anyhow, I also took umbrage at the privatisation of the NHS, having , of late, undergone X-Rays, MRI scans and CT, scan all of them, were rather efficiently done, on time, by contract supplied to a private company, and I have no problem with that. I think it is a little bit more complicated than just black and white, yes/no.
Incidentally, my OH is a clinical lead at the Manchester Children's hospital, they are having a new A&E unit being built, as the current one is no above capacity, with a new operating theatre that will be run as a contract, privately, she has no problem with arrangement either.
|
|
Nov 2019
10:09am, 22 Nov 2019
9,547 posts
|
larkim
WS, I agree with you in the main about the NHS. "Outsourced" NHS to private providers works well in many cases - that's not privatisation of the NHS in my view of the world. Providing the NHS remains free at the point of delivery etc I am broadly ambivalent whether that is directly provided by the NHS staff or sub-contracted out, providing the appropriate oversight and regulation is in place (and with healthcare etc the current regulatory systems do appear to work well).
OTOH, if the NHS can provide it directly at a lower cost because there's no need to fund profit margins etc, then that should be the preferred route. The reality is though that for quite a lot of routine, "off the shelf" provision private providers can provide a provision that is at least as good as the NHS, and often at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
The key is getting the decision making structures correct within the context of the NHS so that "private" doesn't appear cheaper when it isn't, or "NHS provided" doesn't appear too costly when it isn't, when the total cost of delivery is considered.
|
|
Nov 2019
10:20am, 22 Nov 2019
24,708 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
Indeed...the operating theatre I mentioned above is a good example because that could be viewed as either a lack capital spending...which could be true as the new A&E unit is hoovering up a lot of money, or allowing privatisation in...or anything inbetween...my OH's view, and she as a clinician, was part of the decision process, was the new A&E is desperately needed as it is routinely run above capacity...the operating theatre is also needed as regards offering improved quality of care and without private money would not happen.
|
|
Nov 2019
12:32pm, 22 Nov 2019
1,628 posts
|
JRitchie
HappyG - Entirely agree.
WrigglingSnake - Its perfectly reasonable to expect that a high economic rent from oil should be charged. Its taking a finite resource from the ground and the UK overall tax take has reflected this. Current rate varied but its around 40% (higher if UK fields pay other petroleum taxes). In the past when UK O&G produced a lot then tax rates were much higher - easily up to 78% that Norway currently has. However to have a windfall tax you must first have a windfall and the oil price is now about half what it was when gordon brown put in the last tax increase for oil and gas and Aberdeen has suffered economically because of it. We are already paying a windfall tax but we are trying to protect jobs and skills more. Also, I do not think Norway is a fair comparison now. UK O&G production has halved since 1997 (we are declining anyway notwithstanding government intervention) but Norway's production is still the same as it was in the late 1990's - They have bigger fields, its cheaper to take up the oil, they make more profit. Norway government also still owns a lot of norwegian oil profits.
Norway produces 98% of its electricity from Hydro and they are fortunate to have energy security. If the UK had the same topography and population I think we would be in a similar place.
Perhaps Labour should put tariffs on oil imports more heavily instead of taxing UK producers?
|
|
Nov 2019
1:10pm, 22 Nov 2019
306 posts
|
Non-runner
But would it be possible to increase tariffs on oil imports without EU agreement?
|
|
Nov 2019
1:13pm, 22 Nov 2019
1,629 posts
|
JRitchie
Fair point.
|
