As the article acknowledges, it’s left wing economically while being quite right wing on social issues. Blue Labour, essentially.
As the article acknowledges, it’s left wing economically while being quite right wing on social issues. Blue Labour, essentially.
Yeah the article is quite clear but the headline isn’t. I struggle to consider “left-wing” a party that is clearly right-wing on many social issues.
Specific example from this very budget: increasing taxes on electric cars might be economically more taxing on more affluent people, but the implied message is “buy a petrol car instead” which isn’t a left-wing idea at all. Why are petrol cars not taxed per mile (but more aggressively)? Why are cars not taxed relative to cost - how is a 2.5 ton Hybrid Range Rover cheaper to tax than an electric Renault 5 (for say, 10000 miles a year), and how is that left wing???
Petrol cars pay fuel duty, which is finally going to be unfrozen, so they do effectively get taxed more if they’re driven more. Agree Range Rovers should be taxed more, though!
@frankPodmore @Jrockwar cars should be taxed according to size and weight, imo, if you’re bringing road maintenance & wear and tear into it. Then beyond that fuel source can be taxed according to pollution levels, as it currently kind of is (especially if they actually *do* unfreeze fuel duty).
I’d also tax people more for having more cars. Like, the more cars you have registered to an address or an individual, the more tax you pay.
It’s the economist, The United Corporation of Great Tesco and Northern Wetherspoons would be a tad socialist for them.
Because petrol cars are taxed per litre. This measure is to replace the 2% of tax revenue gained from fuel duty for when EVs become more prevalent.
A Hybrid owner is already paying fuel duty, so they’re being charged the excess for their electric mileage rather than being double-taxed.