I don't believe a single word in the Torygraph.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
-8 points (21.4% liked)
UK Politics
3898 readers
119 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A wise position.
Basic principle of labours suggestion sounds fair.
But I would suggest if the gov dose set rates based on property size as suggested. It needs to also take into account occupancy.
A family of 10 living with 3 generations or more. Should not be paying higher per ltr than a single banker living in the same sized house.
Given they are including gardens in this. They also need to consider the risk of developers using it as an excuse to convert all gardens to housing. As the long term cost to society of no one having free space is higher.
IMO those measures should include allowances for family size, but people with swimming pools should get eye watering bills.
Yep.
But for fuck's sake. Let's put some taxpayers' money into public funded pools and gyms, again.
Post thatcher privatised gyms etc. It have become absurdly expensive for anyone on a budget to get regular exercise. And swimming really is the easiest for physically less mobile folks to gain from.
Everyone should have access to near by low cost swimming pools.
He'll do anything except make huge businesses actually pay the taxes they're supposed to.
I wish public lies spread with the intention to mislead the public were a criminal offence.
Unfortunately, while I love the law. This would not class as a lie in court. Just an absurd interpretation of the plan.
Most families have larger houses than most single people. Those who bath children use more water than those who shower them.
So yeah, this change in charging could lead to some families paying more to bathe. Of course, it's a distortion. And could be applied to any tax with enough work.
Much as they do for any form of charge that effects the more wealthy. They are just looking for the angle that lets them distort its effect in votes minds.
This would not class as a lie in court. Just an absurd interpretation of the plan.
Fair enough although I would argue that attempt to mislead is quite clear here.
Yep using grains of truth to misslead is common. In fact I'd say it defines the last 10 years or so of world politics.
I don't understand this, if you on a meter you already pay more if you use more. Filling something huge like a pool or watering a large garden over a season costs a fair old wedge. A swimming pool can easily be 50000l, or about the same as an entire average persons usage for a year.
Is this effectively dynamic pricing for using more for those on metering, or an alternative to metering for the ~40% of households that don't have meters?
The former seems punitive when they are already paying more and the latter seems like it will be deliberately set to benefit the largest homes, the ones with pools and acres of gardens, at the expense of larger families in comparatively small homes.