Do you have a link? Because that turns this minor win into a distraction tactic. I knew this guy was gonna be more centralist than we need but I thought he’d at least fake it for a couple of quarters.
Sounds like it won’t be long before he’s booted too if this is true.
This action to ease the cost of living is being funded by savings from reprioritising the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s budget, including by switching funding for international climate from grants to loans.
Thank you so much! I’d like to know more of the details on what reprioritizing means in this context, I’m not certain a dollar off of fares is equivalent to some meaningful green energy projects but at least according to this article they’re simply moving from grants to loans which on its surface isn’t the worst thing. I think grants make more projects possible regardless of their economic feasibility, while loans are potentially more self-sufficient and reoccurring.
I’d also have liked to see a push for more trains, trams, and street cars. Buses seem to me to be the worst of public transit options. But I’m happy they’re getting more long term funding. Roads are a plight but if it helps the UK people value public transit more that’s a good thing in my book.
Ya, that’s the sort of underhand cruelty that I expect from a centralist party. I can understand the desire for countries to put most of their money to local projects, but I have no doubt this was a small portion. These sorts of projects have high returns on several important metrics, not even accounting for the impact the western world has had on the southern countries we pillaged.
Burnham has promised a lot, but Britain is broke. Every wonderous policy is going to have to come from cuts. He’s signalled a massive investment in defence, and that’s going to hit welfare hard.
“… (Has) To come from cuts” is not how I would put it. Britain could tax the ultra-wealthy out of existence and remove housing as an investment vehicle and they’d be able to leave welfare intact. Every dollar taken out of the quality of living of the average citizen is a choice to give that dollar to the rich. Conservative governments shouldn’t be allowed to do this and people need to be educated on what wealth inequality means for the average Joe.
3 years is absolutely plenty of time to get the ball rolling and potentially even complete the task. If we prematurely say to only the things that would improve our lives “they’re too unrealistic” then those things will face friction worse ideas don’t have to.
Be the change you want to see in the world and stop assuming good things are too hard to complete.
Do you have a link? Because that turns this minor win into a distraction tactic. I knew this guy was gonna be more centralist than we need but I thought he’d at least fake it for a couple of quarters.
Sounds like it won’t be long before he’s booted too if this is true.
The announcement
Thank you so much! I’d like to know more of the details on what reprioritizing means in this context, I’m not certain a dollar off of fares is equivalent to some meaningful green energy projects but at least according to this article they’re simply moving from grants to loans which on its surface isn’t the worst thing. I think grants make more projects possible regardless of their economic feasibility, while loans are potentially more self-sufficient and reoccurring.
I’d also have liked to see a push for more trains, trams, and street cars. Buses seem to me to be the worst of public transit options. But I’m happy they’re getting more long term funding. Roads are a plight but if it helps the UK people value public transit more that’s a good thing in my book.
The sorts of countries involved can’t necessarily afford the loans. This is going to have a big negative impact in the developing world.
Ya, that’s the sort of underhand cruelty that I expect from a centralist party. I can understand the desire for countries to put most of their money to local projects, but I have no doubt this was a small portion. These sorts of projects have high returns on several important metrics, not even accounting for the impact the western world has had on the southern countries we pillaged.
Burnham has promised a lot, but Britain is broke. Every wonderous policy is going to have to come from cuts. He’s signalled a massive investment in defence, and that’s going to hit welfare hard.
“… (Has) To come from cuts” is not how I would put it. Britain could tax the ultra-wealthy out of existence and remove housing as an investment vehicle and they’d be able to leave welfare intact. Every dollar taken out of the quality of living of the average citizen is a choice to give that dollar to the rich. Conservative governments shouldn’t be allowed to do this and people need to be educated on what wealth inequality means for the average Joe.
#TaxWealthNotWork
Burnham has under 3 years. It’s not realistic.
3 years is absolutely plenty of time to get the ball rolling and potentially even complete the task. If we prematurely say to only the things that would improve our lives “they’re too unrealistic” then those things will face friction worse ideas don’t have to.
Be the change you want to see in the world and stop assuming good things are too hard to complete.