Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 18m

It’s like clean streets, fewer potholes, and working street lights - it won’t transform the economy, but it’ll counter the feeling of decline and that nothing works anymore. It‘ll help people feel better about where they live.

Middle-class moralising is so fucking tiresome.

5

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1h

The moralising from some on this just takes the cake.

1 2

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 18h

Their wealth is easily mobile. The idea that a 10% annual tax on assets over a certain amount will work perfectly fine is nonsense.

Wealth tax advocates are wasting an opportunity to push for meaningful tax reform, eg on land value, IGT, CGT, and dividends.

1 2

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 19h

No, it won’t work. Take stocks (eg pension portfolios). Selling stocks to pay the tax will … depreciate the value of the stock.

1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 19h

Reeves‘ election tax pledges continue to look utterly daft by the day.

1 1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 19h

Lol, that’s not going to work.

1 1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 19h

Ahh but they‘ll either demand high tax-free wages or young people do it on minimum wage.

1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 20h

Of course the LibDems reach for misinformation in their irrational opposition to ID cards.

Full Fact @fullfact.org · 20h

On social media and their website, the Liberal Democrats have claimed “Keir Starmer says everyone in the UK will be required to have mandatory digital ID”.

But this isn’t the case, and we can’t find any evidence the Prime Minister said it was.

Digital ID won’t be mandatory for ‘everyone in the UK’ – Full Fact

The Liberal Democrats have claimed Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said everyone in the UK will have to have digital ID, but that’s not the case.

fullfact.org

1 1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

It would be absolutely disastrous and delegitimise the state in the eyes of many.

Alas, Starmer - ever the anti-politician - probably doesn’t grasp the importance of it and wouldn’t want to deal with the short-term headache of advancing electoral reform.

1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

Electoral reform would, in the current context, be less a cynical ploy by Labour and more a necessity to prevent FPtP producing a wildly-unrepresentative and ungovernable mess.

Rob Ford @robfordmancs.bsky.social · 1d

Four parties within a 5 point swing of first place and five parties on 12% plus.

This would be pure chaos under first past the post.

Election Maps UK @electionmaps.uk · 1d

Westminster Voting Intention:

RFM: 27% (-2)
LAB: 20% (-2)
CON: 17% (+1)
LDM: 17% (+2)
GRN: 12% (+1)
SNP: 4% (+1)

Via @yougov.co.uk, 5-6 Oct.
Changes w/ 28-29 Sep.

1 5

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

Notwithstanding that Russia has been at war with Ukraine since 2014 and the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

Labour promised change last year. If it refuses to pursue necessary policies that will positively change the country, like unfreezing fuel duty to invest elsewhere because it will aggrieved a vocal minority of people, then that conflict-avoidance approach is not conducive to the change narrative.

2

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

I‘m sorry James, but Labour cannot honestly claim to have capped bus fares when it continued a Tory policy with a higher cap. It not being innately Tory is totally irrelevant.

You say increasing the cost of transport isn’t Labour … yet that’s exactly what it’s done vis-à-vis bus and rail fares.

1 1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

Change - remember, the ensured basis of the last election campaign - and avoiding confrontation are contradictory. Avoiding necessary change because „it matters to a lot of people“ is ridiculous.

1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

It’s dishonest to claim Labour continuing a Tory policy (at a higher rate) as their own. Take a step back and look at the contortions you’re making to justify the claim.

„It matters to people“ … so is a functioning and affordable transport system wich the cap undermines (look at rail fares).

1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

„We kept the cap … by making it more expensive … all while maintaining a regressive real-terms subsidy for fuel. Go us!“

It’s no wonder people are turned off politics when Labour try to take credit for continuing Tory policies as their own.

1

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

Not only is it dishonest, it’s piss-poor politics to claim raising the cap by 50% as a victory Labour should be thanked for. Doubly so when they maintained the fuel duty freeze.

2

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

Alas HMT would veto it because it doesn’t thing it’s good value for money.

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

Any government serious about properly addressing economic decline would put an end to HMT‘s pathological control freakery.

Rob Ford @robfordmancs.bsky.social · 1d

The Treasury really is the final boss in British political reform. So many pathologies ultimately stem from its insane level of control over revenue raising and spending

2

Zach Elsbury @zachelsbury.bsky.social · 1d

The modern Tory Party: yesterday's barely-known politician repeating yesterday's tired and easily-disproven lines.

A party begging for an electoral coup de grace.

POLITICO Europe @politico.eu · 2d

Shadow Trade Secretary Andrew Griffith has warned against “deeper entanglement” with Europe, claiming it could stop the UK from exploiting trade opportunities further afield.