Tag: Cost

Any delay to the UK leaving the EU could cost the government tens of millions in extra payments to keep its no-deal ferry contracts in place. Conservatives tell MEPs to consider election bid if Brexit deal fails Read more It seems unlikely the contracts will now be realised after MPs voted to instruct Theresa May to seek an extension to article 50, which would delay Brexit beyond 29 March. According to the Financial Times, the cost of the delay could reach £28m. Brittany Ferries, which has contracts worth £46.6m under the deal, said the terms “included fair and proportionate compensation in a deal scenario, taking account of the significant preparatory work and concomitant costs incurred”. It said the firm had already “incurred a series of direct costs and resource commitments”, including hiring new staff and changing more than 20,000 bookings, and “the new schedule cannot now be changed, even as an extension to article 50 seems likely”. 'I feel frustrated': the Brexit view from Edinburgh and Hastings Read more The contracts are intended to ensure imports of medicines and other vital supplies to the UK continue in the event of a no-deal Brexit causing chaos on the short Dover-Calais and Channel tunnel routes. A National Audit Office memorandum in February noted the potential problems caused by a delay to the article 50 process. “If the date of the UK’s exit from the EU changes, and there is still the possibility of a no-deal EU exit, the department will need to decide how it wishes to proceed with the contracts,” the NAO said in February. “There is no provision for the start date to be delayed, but the department may seek to negotiate this with the operators.” A Department for Transport spokesman said: “As the prime minister has made clear, the legal default in UK and EU law remains that the UK will leave the EU without a deal unless something else is agreed. “Leaving with a deal is still our priority, but as a responsible government it is only right that we push on with contingency measures, that will ensure critical goods such as medicines can continue to enter the UK.”

This Rebuild Alabama Act is a gas tax increase that is filled with landmines for politicians. Any tax increase is going to be unpopular. I would vote no on this particular increase, but politicians make it worse by not explaining the reasoning for some of the more unpopular measures. One of those landmines is the “indexing” of the gas tax to construction costs via the National Highway Construction Cost Index. Almost every other tax you pay is indexed in a similar way. As the price of goods and services go up with inflation, the sales tax you pay goes up, as does the tax collected. If we had indexed the 1992 gas tax increase, we would not be having this conversation and, more importantly, the roads would be in better shape. The road repair and building monies collected by the state would have increased slowly with the cost of inflation and, more importantly, the roads would be in better shape. Dale Jackson is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts a talk show from 7-11 am weekdays on WVNN Hot streak: Alabama NASCAR team on a roll after two straight wins For Alabama’s Xtreme Concepts Racing Team, heavy are the trophies when they start running out of hands to hold them. That was the enviable problem for team owner Landon Ash when he went back to victory lane for the second week in a row in NASCAR’s Xfinity Series.

The effect of conflating these two very different critiques of “identity politics” has been that in order to discredit the leftist critique, which is associated with an enthusiasm for economic justice arguments, some commentators try to “prove” the value of identity politics by attributing electoral victories to the winning candidates’ embrace of “identity politics” — this without any evidence beyond the race, gender, or sexual identity of the candidate. At the same time, those who trade in “white identity politics” (e.g., identity politics emphasizing whiteness), are not identified as embracing identity politics. To prove that she embraced “identity politics,” Phillips argues that Abrams “publicly and repeatedly expressed solidarity with and welcomed support from LGBTQ groups, labor unions, pro-choice groups, and gun-control advocates.” He writes that by emphasizing identity and focusing on mobilizing voters of color who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, red states like Georgia can go blue. And third, although neither candidate was especially focused on “identity,” Evans, not Abrams, is more accurately described as the “identity” candidate. Evans hammered Abrams on HOPE during primary debates and in campaign ads — consistently emphasizing the racial implications. People of color will be the center of that coalition because they are the majority of the Democratic Party, but this is a coalition that will invite everyone in.” In short, Abrams understands that a winning coalition can be inclusive of white voters without subordinating the interests of marginalized groups. If prospective 2020 candidates take a lesson from Abrams’s victory, let it be this approach. Confusingly, he describes “progressive whites” tautologically as anyone who would vote for a Democratic candidate, while at the same time dismissing the role working-class white voters played in Obama’s electoral successes: Had one in four white working-class Obama voters not switched their allegiance to Trump or a third-party candidate, Trump likely would have lost the election. But the Demos study found that “Working People” is the message that resonates most strongly among both liberals and “persuadables,” because it provides a “foundation in a shared value,” like caring for families. Even while commentators like Phillips and Packnett recognize that successful candidates like Abrams and Obama “stitched together a multiracial coalition of voters,” they, along with certain liberal activists, seem to have embraced the conclusion that “white America believes in white supremacy more than they believe in democracy.” Their insistence that “courting whites” means abandoning everyone else is rooted in the fallacy that voters of color care exclusively about identity — even as studies show that the chief concerns of black voters, like all voters, are economic.

From George Osborne, the Evening Standard editor and former Conservative chancellor (@George_Osborne) What a bargain this is all turning out to be .... BBC News - Brexit: Technology-based customs system 'could cost £20bn' https://t.co/W6ICo5eE47 From the FT’s Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) Chief executive of HMRC thinks "max fac" could cost companies up to £200bn over a decade: yet Eurosceptic Tory MPs still believe they are *pro business* https://t.co/b7ySOyjQs6 pic.twitter.com/Pja40dFjjT From Hugh Bennett, deputy editor of BrexitCentral (@HughRBennett) HMRC offers hypothetical figure of £17-£20bn cost of customsIn the real world, former Swiss Foreign Secretary Prof Michael Ambuhl says the cost of customs is 0.1% of the value of trade for Switzerland - translates to around £500m a year for the UKhttps://t.co/SE6hUuELmq And Jon Thompson, the HMRC boss, also explained why he thought the new customs partnership (NCP) proposal could cost business nothing once it was up and running. (@jrmaidment) Downing Street says HMRC estimate that max fac Brexit customs option could cost businesses £20bn is “speculation”. The question is, how much does it cost to complete a customs declaration? The highly streamlined option is going to cost businesses £32.50, approximately, per customs declaration. That’s a cost of between £17bn and £20bn a year. She says the “max fac” customs system would involve firms having to pay £32.50 per customs declaration. This would cost them up between £17bn and £20bn a year, she says. (@jl_owen) HMRC say Max Fac could cost business up to £20bn...Last September, we @instituteforgov looked at potential costs - declarations alone could cost business up to £9bn pic.twitter.com/ecUlz3sXPx Thompson confirms that HMRC has asked firms to sign non-disclosure agreements before it discusses with them how customs arrangements might work after Brexit. Thompson says the “max fac” system could cost business between £17bn and £20bn. HMRC says “max fac” customs system preferred by Brexiters could cost business up to £20bn.

British households are more than £900 worse off after the vote to leave the EU, according to the governor of the Bank of England, in comments that risk a renewed confrontation with senior Brexit supporters in the government. Comparing the current state of household finances with forecasts made by the Bank before the referendum, prepared on the basis of a remain vote, Mark Carney told MPs that household incomes were now significantly lower than expected. Business leaders say economic nationalism is biggest growth threat Read more Speaking in front of the Treasury select committee of MPs, Carney also said the economy was 2% smaller than forecast before the EU referendum, despite the strength of the global economy and the Bank’s emergency cut in interest rates after the Brexit vote. Jacob Rees-Mogg told MailOnline Carney was “crying wolf”, while Boris Johnson, speaking on a visit to Argentina, insisted Brexit had not damaged the interests of the country. “I believe that the chancellor of the exchequer has given a definitive answer on this matter, which is that it is not the case that Brexit has damaged the interests of this country,” Johnson said. However, opponents of Brexit seized on Carney’s remarks as evidence of the pain being inflicted on households by Britain’s EU exit. Consumers have come under significant financial pressure from rising inflation since the Brexit vote, as the immediate drop in the value of the pound pushed up the cost of importing food and fuel to Britain. At the same time wage growth has remained weak despite the lowest levels of unemployment since the mid-70s. But after a year of falling living standards, earnings finally began to rise above inflation in February, signalling the worst of the pressure on household finances could be coming to an end. The strength of the world economy and availability of finance from the banking sector should have helped encourage companies to invest more, boosting the economy, he said.

Last week, it was $200 million. One race. To elect one senator. People who run campaigns say it might cost $3 million a week for a candidate to saturate Florida with TV advertising. The two major parties just spent more than $16 million on a special election for a single House seat in Pennsylvania where the winner, Democrat Conor Lamb, will serve seven months before the district ceases to exist as a court-ordered redistricting goes into effect for November’s regular election. Many voters don’t get engaged in races until close to the finish. But we can limit the time during which candidates can spend, which would limit the spending itself — by bringing the start of the race closer to the finish. Make elections shorter. Make them a Final Four — four regions, four weeks, every state in each region holds its primary the same day. Do it in September, have party conventions the first week of October, then a month of campaigning.