In The Event I Haven't Made This Clear . . .
Where Is The Iron Lady When You Need Her?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I desperately hope that David Cameron loses the next general election in Great Britain. It could be the best thing to happen to a Conservative Party that should keep to its Thatcherite legacy instead of embracing . . . this (read on):
Harsh new taxes on air travel, including a strict personal flight "allowance", will be unveiled by the Conservatives tomorrow as part of a plan that would penalise business travellers, holidaymakers and the tourist industry.
The proposals, to be disclosed by George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, include levying VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights for the first time as part of a radical plan to tackle global warming.
The Conservatives will also suggest - most controversially of all - rationing individuals to as little as a single short-haul flight each year; any further journeys would attract progressively higher taxes, a leaked document entitled Greener Skies suggests.
The Tories' radical green taxes form one of the most ambitious programmes ever put forward by a mainstream political party. But they sparked an immediate war with Labour last night, while the travel industry branded them a "tax on fun".
In a further departure from Tory tradition, the party will underline its green credentials by welcoming Al Gore, the Democrat former US vice-president, to a meeting of the shadow cabinet on Thursday.
Mr Osborne's document will list a series of far-reaching, though uncosted, green tax proposals the proceeds of which will be ploughed into tax cuts "for the family", said a Conservative source.
The Tories are going to ration airline flights. Just ponder that and ask yourself whether you ever thought that Conservatives--in the Western tradition--would ever propose a policy so destined to fail.
The response to this bizarre proposal is entirely correct:
However, the plans were denounced last night as a "tax on hard working families" and a "tax on fun". A spokesman for the British Air Transport Association, which includes British Airways, BMI and Virgin, said: "These proposals would threaten to decimate the airline industry, the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports. They would put at risk the UK's position as the global transport hub and our links with the rest of the world.
"They would tax hard working families out of the sky all for the sake of tackling 0.1 per cent of the world's CO2 emissions."
Opponents said it was hard to see how the average family or business person could stay within the proposed flying "allowance".
A Labour source said: "These policies would raise vast amounts of extra revenue and impose a hugely complex tax regime, but with no discernible impact on global emissions from air travel. The Tories have had two years to come up with a coherent policy on green taxes, and it beggars belief that this is the result."
Frances Tuke, of the Association of British Travel Agents, said: "Any tax will put a dampener on fun. Passengers don't want to be unfairly taxed."
Who would have ever thought that Labour would have a better grasp on economic issues than the Tories? And who can think of a Tory leader less deserving of a stint at 10 Downing Street than David Cameron?
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | "Heaven Here On Earth" — Comments (5) »
In The Event I Haven't Made This Clear . . . 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
because of stupid thinking like this. Even now, when the country is absolutely fed up with Tony Blair, the Tories are being led by a buffoon. It makes me wonder if too many Brits with a pair were killed in WWII or those with common sense emigrated to Australia or here leaving the inbred and weak in the majority.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
is horrible and anti-American. The modern Tories are a shadow of their former selves.
Molon Labe!
Then don't elect Guiliani. I am not saying you'd see proposals as drastic as this in an Guiliani administration, but what sense does it make to have someone as your "leader" that doesn't stand for most of what you believe?
Must be sickened and bewildered... Her party has gone completely looney. David Cameron is so desparate to win that he has sold his soul.
and there is no proposal for tax increases.
There is a proposal to shift from income to consumption. This is exactly the manifesto on which the Conservatives fought, and won, the 1979 election, so the idea that Margaret Thatcher is likely to be bewildered by this is a little odd.
The dangerous meme that David Cameron is anti-American is just silly. William Hague, his shadow foreign secretary, is one of the most pro-American figures in British politics.
As for the notion that Labour has a better grasp on economics than the Conservatives - well, only if you believe in central planning. Labour has its proposals, and they do involve tax increases. On top the eighty tax increases Labour has already introduced.
This is the big defining difference on green taxes. Labour wants them to be additional to the current tax burden, the Conservatives want them to replace current taxes on individuals and businesses.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
There is a proposal to shift from taxing income to taxing consumption.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
If you think that the main purpose of government is to discourage wealth creation.
If, on the other hand, you think that taxing income is inefficient and unjust, you would probably support a shift to taxing consumption.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You are still aligning yourself with the bad guys.
Cameron is proposing a shift in taxation away from income towards pollution and consumption. Just as Milton Friedman proposed for the US.
Brown is proposing extra taxes to finance an ever expanding role for the government. I know whose side I'm on.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
politicians in either party that come up with hairbrained tax proposals to compel people to modify their behaviors rather than to raise revenue for needed services.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
It is better to discourage income and wealth than to discourage pollution? I didn't know you were that far left.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
What I said is that no tax should be passed to modify behavior. I have no problem with taxing income or consumption as long as it is for raising revenue. By example, a sales tax is fine. A doubling/tripling of the rate on cigarettes to discourage smoking is not fine. An income tax is fine with some rational progression. An income tax that has a progression that precludes wealth creation is not fine.
The reason why these behavior modification taxes fail is that the behavior that gets modified is the paying of the tax. Here in California, we have a high behavior modification rate on cigars. Instead of buying them in a local store, and paying a fair tax into local coffers, I buy them over the internet and pay no tax to anyone.
As for the effect of confiscatory levels of income tax, look at Britain and where the Rolling Stones all "lived".
Concept clear?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I didn't realise you were under the illusion that the taxes *you* support *don't* have the effect of modifying behaviour.
You get more of what you subsidise and less of what you tax. You get that whether you want to modify behaviour or just to raise revenue. The motivation of the people passing the tax has no effect on the incentives involved.
As an aside, this is why it is odd that we tax income and wealth while subsidising sickness and poverty.
This is why I favour intelligent behaviour by politicians. Taxes raise revenue, but also effect incentives. I think that politicians should take account of these dual effects when implementing a tax policy.
You seem to be saying that it is okay to raise revenue, provided you pretend you don't know that this will also effect incentives.
So, yes, your concept was pretty clear. Just not very bright.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
now, when I read up on British politics (from which I am happily separated these days, courtesy of the Atlantic Ocean), when I do not kick myself for voting for this man as leader of the Conservative Party (of which I remain a member, despite my discontent). Of course, he was not my first choice out of the gate, but unsurprisingly, my first choice didn't make it very far out of the gate. Because the majority of my party was evidently interested in electing someone like this instead of a sensible human being.
At this stage, I have no doubt that in a straight contest between Brown's Labour party and Cameron's Conservative party, Brown will clean Cameron's clock. And as someone who reviles Gordon Brown probably even more than I revile characters like Ted Kennedy, that's really not a positive in my opinion.
Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans
At this stage, I have no doubt that in a straight contest between Brown's Labour party and Cameron's Conservative party, Brown will clean Cameron's clock.
I notice you are hedging your prediction with the 'straight contest' nonsense. That doesn't even happen in the US where, as you know, there are minor parties which pick a few percent. Total votes for minor parties in the UK are likely to be above 25% at the next election.
Still, if there were a straight contest, or anything like a US system, Cameron would beat Brown with a double-digit lead right now, and probably a bigger lead by the time of the actual election.
In the real world, an election tomorrow would produce a governing overall majority for the Conservatives. By the time the election is actually held some things will have changed. The precise distribution of the minor party vote will have a key impact on how big the Conservative majority is. I can't help thinking that Cameron's focus on green issues will have the same impact that Margaret Thatcher's did in 1987-88 - it will produce a surge in support for the Green Party.
If that happens, the Lib Dem party will be facing a possible wipeout, and you can add 50-100 seats to the size of the Conservative majority.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
but unsurprisingly, my first choice didn't make it very far out of the gate.
Alan Duncan?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Rationing flights? I cant' believe this is a serious proposal. Tell me the Tories are pulling some sort of prank.