Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

I’m beginning to be concerned about my CON poll lead bet – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • PJHPJH Posts: 275
    eek said:

    Railways should run 24 hours

    No demand most of the time...

    Plus you need the time for engineering works - heck that's even true on roads remembering my journey home from Newcastle last night (via Heworth)..
    Not quite true. No demand for passenger, granted (though on my line last train is about 1AM, first one about 5AM) but a lot of freight runs overnight, when there are no passenger trains to disrupt.

    In fact the only time there are no trains running is in the early hours of Sunday morning. A few years ago I did some work on Network Rail systems and we wondered if we had to make any adjustments for trains starting during the hour immediately before or after the clocks go back - it turned out nothing ran at that time. (Even the Caledonian Sleeper doesn't run Saturday night).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    edited August 2022

    kamski said:


    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING

    AND THIS IS IMPORTANT

    I’m having lunch right here with the kiddo



    And I asked the waiter for bruschetta and pronounced it brooshetta as posh Italians have told me it is NOT broosketta and I like to do it the posh way

    But the Italian waiter just called it broosketta

    😶😶😶

    What is right???

    The waiter is right. The h makes it a hard c.
    That’s what I always thought until a few years ago when some upper crust Italians told me it is actually brooshetta
    This Italian is adamant it's broosketta and that's good enough for me:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHBFt11zz7U
    If we can get a definitive answer to this question it will be the most useful thing I have ever learned on PB.
    The "h" in Italian words is usually used to harden the preceeding c or g which would otherwise be softened by the following e or i.

    Think zucchini vs cappuccino

    So definitely /k/ in bruschetta (at least in Italian).
    Thanks, this is what I have always thought.
    Leon is wrong. Whatever is this site coming to?

    And his purported Italian “friends” get a long awaited payoff for their wind-up.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:


    That's not true. Not just because libertarianism but because going out while infected, but because vaccines have been rolled out.

    I said that while we shouldn't have been locked down, in hindsight, I would still in hindsight have stayed at home pre vaccines if I knew I was infected.

    Now though we are post vaccines. I absolutely have no intention of remaining at home if I'm fit and healthy simply because I'm carrying a virus that people have been vaccinated against.

    Carrying a virus is natural. We all carry viruses all the time as far as I know. Staying at home because of viruses when you're healthy is just paranoia and I'll have no part in that, post vaccines.

    So just checking, as you never answered last time I asked.

    You are asymptomatic but have tested positive for Covid.

    Do you go visit your immunocompromised friend without taking precautions?
    I don't think it's a valid hypothetical. The question is whether you would go to a public place which an immunocompromised person, unbeknown to you, might have taken the risk of visiting.
    It's a really simple yes or no question.

    I am totally amazed at the number of people who avoid answering the question, or try to turn it into another question.

    Maybe, and I'm just throwing it out there, they are
    worried about the implications of answering yes or no.
    This is a silly question. If I had a cold or the shits I would avoid going to see a friend who was for example undergoing chemo. The same if I knew I had covid. I wouldn’t stop going out in public with any of them if I felt well enough.
    If i feel ill i stay in until i feel better. I can't grasp the circumstances where i would test myself for a disease if i felt fine. Its rabid hypochondria.
    Non-rabid hypochondria, presumably.

    I have been non-dead for the past eight odd years, because of having been tested for a disease when I felt fine. I would also think it merely good manners to test myself for a communicable disease before going to see someone at high risk of dying of it.

    So that's self-interest and morality, right there. Want any more?
    Do you test for flu before you visit someone? Or any number of other communicable diseases that can be carried asymptomatically?
    Well, if I did, it would hardly be hypochondria, would it now, if it were them and not me i was worried about?

    I would be guided by them.

    More silly questions?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214
    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:


    That's not true. Not just because libertarianism but because going out while infected, but because vaccines have been rolled out.

    I said that while we shouldn't have been locked down, in hindsight, I would still in hindsight have stayed at home pre vaccines if I knew I was infected.

    Now though we are post vaccines. I absolutely have no intention of remaining at home if I'm fit and healthy simply because I'm carrying a virus that people have been vaccinated against.

    Carrying a virus is natural. We all carry viruses all the time as far as I know. Staying at home because of viruses when you're healthy is just paranoia and I'll have no part in that, post vaccines.

    So just checking, as you never answered last time I asked.

    You are asymptomatic but have tested positive for Covid.

    Do you go visit your immunocompromised friend without taking precautions?
    I don't think it's a valid hypothetical. The question is whether you would go to a public place which an immunocompromised person, unbeknown to you, might have taken the risk of visiting.
    It's a really simple yes or no question.

    I am totally amazed at the number of people who avoid answering the question, or try to turn it into another question.

    Maybe, and I'm just throwing it out there, they are
    worried about the implications of answering yes or no.
    This is a silly question. If I had a cold or the shits I would avoid going to see a friend who was for example undergoing chemo. The same if I knew I had covid. I wouldn’t stop going out in public with any of them if I felt well enough.
    If i feel ill i stay in until i feel better. I can't grasp the circumstances where i would test myself for a disease if i felt fine. Its rabid hypochondria.
    Non-rabid hypochondria, presumably.

    I have been non-dead for the past eight odd years, because of having been tested for a disease when I felt fine. I would also think it merely good manners to test myself for a communicable disease before going to see someone at high risk of dying of it.

    So that's self-interest and morality, right there. Want any more?
    Do you test for flu before you visit someone? Or any number of other communicable diseases that can be carried asymptomatically?
    Well, if I did, it would hardly be hypochondria, would it now, if it were them and not me i was worried about?

    I would be guided by them.

    More silly questions?
    That's a long winded way of saying "no"...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022
    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    Just a single figures swing and we have crossover... from Con to LD!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Driver said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:


    That's not true. Not just because libertarianism but because going out while infected, but because vaccines have been rolled out.

    I said that while we shouldn't have been locked down, in hindsight, I would still in hindsight have stayed at home pre vaccines if I knew I was infected.

    Now though we are post vaccines. I absolutely have no intention of remaining at home if I'm fit and healthy simply because I'm carrying a virus that people have been vaccinated against.

    Carrying a virus is natural. We all carry viruses all the time as far as I know. Staying at home because of viruses when you're healthy is just paranoia and I'll have no part in that, post vaccines.

    So just checking, as you never answered last time I asked.

    You are asymptomatic but have tested positive for Covid.

    Do you go visit your immunocompromised friend without taking precautions?
    I don't think it's a valid hypothetical. The question is whether you would go to a public place which an immunocompromised person, unbeknown to you, might have taken the risk of visiting.
    It's a really simple yes or no question.

    I am totally amazed at the number of people who avoid answering the question, or try to turn it into another question.

    Maybe, and I'm just throwing it out there, they are
    worried about the implications of answering yes or no.
    This is a silly question. If I had a cold or the shits I would avoid going to see a friend who was for example undergoing chemo. The same if I knew I had covid. I wouldn’t stop going out in public with any of them if I felt well enough.
    If i feel ill i stay in until i feel better. I can't grasp the circumstances where i would test myself for a disease if i felt fine. Its rabid hypochondria.
    Non-rabid hypochondria, presumably.

    I have been non-dead for the past eight odd years, because of having been tested for a disease when I felt fine. I would also think it merely good manners to test myself for a communicable disease before going to see someone at high risk of dying of it.

    So that's self-interest and morality, right there. Want any more?
    Do you test for flu before you visit someone? Or any number of other communicable diseases that can be carried asymptomatically?
    Well, if I did, it would hardly be hypochondria, would it now, if it were them and not me i was worried about?

    I would be guided by them.

    More silly questions?
    That's a long winded way of saying "no"...
    That's a succinct way of saying "I am too stupid to bother continuing the conversation with."

    I would be guided by them, I said. So if asked not to come without a clear test I would take a test; if not, not.

    People capable of finding their own arse in the dark without a torch will already have realised this.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,050

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    Just a single figures swing and we have crossover... from Con to LD!
    That would screw up the Progressive Alliance Tactical Voting something proper!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting analysis by @ShippersUnbound @thetimes on state of the Union. IMO what shld most alarm Unionists throughout UK is English indifference: 42% in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 wld welcome or aren't bothered by 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 separation, goes up to 55% re Irish unification @YouGov

    https://twitter.com/dlidington/status/1561390942770405377?s=21&t=xp64aWKqX-FzMDFU9002QQ

    Yet only 1 in 7 English voters want Scotland to leave the UK and by a 17% margin English voters would be upset not pleased if Northern Ireland left the UK. Despite England still being the only home nation in the UK without its own parliament.

    In any case unless the whole UK gets a vote on the Union in a referendum or England
    votes for the English Democrats and ultimately English independence, English voters get no say on the Union anyway
    England does have its own Parliament. The one at Westminster. It is the old English Pmt with assorted others added and subtracted at various times. And until your very own glorious Party recently deleted the legislation for reasons which remain completely unclear, it had English votes for English laws.
    The reason was completely clear: EVEL as implemented was bollocks, as a majority of MPs representing English constituencies couldn't implement something if there was a UK majority against it.

    The idea that the Westminster parliament is an English parliament is risible.
    Surely the whole point of EVEL was to remove the question of a UK majority by making sure the non-English MPs couldn't vote.

    This was much touted by Mr Cameron as a solution to devolution's anomalies.
    If there is a Labour minority government at the next election propped up by the SNP, Starmer could well offer the SNP indyref2 in return for voting on English laws if the Tories still have most seats in England but no majority in the UK
    Like everyone else, you're missing what would happen before then. The situation would be too chaotic to get that far.

    And the deletion of EVEL means that that isn't even an offer, not least because the SNP don't vote on English laws*.

    *Except in aberrant cases, which EVEL eliminates - or would if the Tories hadn't cancelled it to give themselves the kind of girevance you are so assiduously repeating.
    No it wouldn't, Starmer just does a written deal with the SNP for indyref2 in return for SNP votes on English laws as May did a deal with the DUP in 2017. Starmer then enters No 10 to lead a minority government propped up by the SNP for a majority in a hung parliament.

    The SNP would vote on English laws in return for indyref2, guaranteed
    Projecting your views on the enemy. You think it fair to override other people's votes and parliaments, so of course you assume the 'enemy' are as bad.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510
    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    "Even the Telegraph admitted..."

    In an article that sparked all of this because it was a pile of crap and based on "We don't like lockdowns so the excess deaths must have been lockdowns."

    Whilst a far better analysis with far more work came up with the actual answer.

    Bringing up the other side of the ledger really is uncomfortable for you, isn't it Andy?

    Lockdowns kill people who would have survived covid. Suicides, missed medical diagnoses, upsurges in obesity due to inactivity, poverty caused by incurring crushing debt paying people to do nothing. Many more have their life chances ruined.

    Deal with it.
    Making stuff up doesn't make it true and certainly doesn't make me uncomfortable.
    Quoting the Telegraph article with "even the Telegraph has admitted..." actually made me laugh. It's up there with "Even Toby Young has admitted that lockdowns are bad," or "Even Sunetra Gupta has admitted that we all had covid by April 2020," or "Even Michael Yeadon has admitted that viruses don't exist and covid was all a clever conspiracy to kill most of the world's population with bioweapon vaccines."

    WE KNOW THERE'S A COST TO LOCKDOWN. Pretending we're ignoring that doesn't make you clever, it makes you look like attacking a strawman.

    Suicides went down in lockdown. Mental health issues increased after lockdown was lifted. Missed medical diagnoses would be worse without restrictions. Many more had loved ones die or suffer hugely.
    Over 13,000 children lost a parent in the UK to covid.

    Deal with it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    ...

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    Just a single figures swing and we have crossover... from Con to LD!
    That would screw up the Progressive Alliance Tactical Voting something proper!
    I don't know Nick. On new boundaries the LDs would still only get a handful of seats on 22% and the Tories on 22% are probably just shy of a majority.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting analysis by @ShippersUnbound @thetimes on state of the Union. IMO what shld most alarm Unionists throughout UK is English indifference: 42% in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 wld welcome or aren't bothered by 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 separation, goes up to 55% re Irish unification @YouGov

    https://twitter.com/dlidington/status/1561390942770405377?s=21&t=xp64aWKqX-FzMDFU9002QQ

    Yet only 1 in 7 English voters want Scotland to leave the UK and by a 17% margin English voters would be upset not pleased if Northern Ireland left the UK. Despite England still being the only home nation in the UK without its own parliament.

    In any case unless the whole UK gets a vote on the Union in a referendum or England
    votes for the English Democrats and ultimately English independence, English voters get no say on the Union anyway
    One almost feels sorry for them.

    If the next general election produces a hung parliament with the Tories most seats but Starmer PM propped up by the SNP then you would start to see that shift to vocal English nationalism and demands for an English parliament like the other 3 home nations at least
    So, we ain’t seen nothin yet.

    The mind boggles.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting analysis by @ShippersUnbound @thetimes on state of the Union. IMO what shld most alarm Unionists throughout UK is English indifference: 42% in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 wld welcome or aren't bothered by 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 separation, goes up to 55% re Irish unification @YouGov

    https://twitter.com/dlidington/status/1561390942770405377?s=21&t=xp64aWKqX-FzMDFU9002QQ

    Yet only 1 in 7 English voters want Scotland to leave the UK and by a 17% margin English voters would be upset not pleased if Northern Ireland left the UK. Despite England still being the only home nation in the UK without its own parliament.

    In any case unless the whole UK gets a vote on the Union in a referendum or England
    votes for the English Democrats and ultimately English independence, English voters get no say on the Union anyway
    England does have its own Parliament. The one at Westminster. It is the old English Pmt with assorted others added and subtracted at various times. And until your very own glorious Party recently deleted the legislation for reasons which remain completely unclear, it had English votes for English laws.
    The reason was completely clear: EVEL as implemented was bollocks, as a majority of MPs representing English constituencies couldn't implement something if there was a UK majority against it.

    The idea that the Westminster parliament is an English parliament is risible.
    Surely the whole point of EVEL was to remove the question of a UK majority by making sure the non-English MPs couldn't vote.

    This was much touted by Mr Cameron as a solution to devolution's anomalies.
    If there is a Labour minority government at the next election propped up by the SNP, Starmer could well offer the SNP indyref2 in return for voting on English laws if the Tories still have most seats in England but no majority in the UK
    Like everyone else, you're missing what would happen before then. The situation would be too chaotic to get that far.

    And the deletion of EVEL means that that isn't even an offer, not least because the SNP don't vote on English laws*.

    *Except in aberrant cases, which EVEL eliminates - or would if the Tories hadn't cancelled it to give themselves the kind of girevance you are so assiduously repeating.
    No it wouldn't, Starmer just does a written deal with the SNP for indyref2 in return for SNP votes on English laws as May did a deal with the DUP in 2017. Starmer then enters No 10 to lead a minority government propped up by the SNP for a majority in a hung parliament.

    The SNP would vote on English laws in return for indyref2, guaranteed
    Projecting your views on the enemy. You think it fair to override other people's votes and parliaments, so of course you assume the 'enemy' are as bad.
    Given that the SNP has form for voting on English laws (for instance, we have them to thank for having to carefully plan our Sunday supermarket trips every week)...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344
    Rishi Sunak has suggested that Liz Truss would “spook” international investors if she threatened the independence of the Bank of England.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/aug/23/liz-truss-tax-plan-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-uk-politics-live
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    IanB2 said:

    kamski said:


    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING

    AND THIS IS IMPORTANT

    I’m having lunch right here with the kiddo



    And I asked the waiter for bruschetta and pronounced it brooshetta as posh Italians have told me it is NOT broosketta and I like to do it the posh way

    But the Italian waiter just called it broosketta

    😶😶😶

    What is right???

    The waiter is right. The h makes it a hard c.
    That’s what I always thought until a few years ago when some upper crust Italians told me it is actually brooshetta
    This Italian is adamant it's broosketta and that's good enough for me:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHBFt11zz7U
    If we can get a definitive answer to this question it will be the most useful thing I have ever learned on PB.
    The "h" in Italian words is usually used to harden the preceeding c or g which would otherwise be softened by the following e or i.

    Think zucchini vs cappuccino

    So definitely /k/ in bruschetta (at least in Italian).
    Thanks, this is what I have always thought.
    Leon is wrong. Whatever is this site coming to?

    And his purported Italian “friends” get a long awaited payoff for their wind-up.
    I dunno
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    Not true. Andy already linked to reputable studies on this earlier in the thread. You just ignore anything that doesn't match your world view. Did some people die because of lockdown - I would suggest that is undeniable. Was it any where near the scale of those who died from Covid and those who would have died had we not had lockdown - no.

    If you go back and look at the start of the epidemic I was on here casting doubt on the idea of lockdowns. At the time the prospect of a vaccine seemed like being years off and all the concerns anti-lockdowners have expressed seemed reasonable to me then.

    I was wrong. The advent of vaccines, even if we didn't know it at the time, meant that the lockdowns were exactly the right thing to do. They kept people alive long enough to get them protected and able to go back to living normal lives.
    It's interesting that the exact same logic on vaccines made Toby Young into a committed anti-vaxxer.
    Because, as you point out, the advent of vaccines in a short timescale meant the restrictions were right. If, though, one were to insist that they COULDN'T be right, then the vaccines must be wrong.

    He started out by insisting that all they would do would be to reduce your chance of testing positive and have no effect on serious illness or even if you got ill at all - just change tests from positive to negative. Then he went full-blooded on "They don't work" and on to "They kill loads of people."
    Providing a daily and unquestioned platform for Clare Craig's antivaxxer HART Group to post antivax misinformation and then highlighting it. He's doing it daily.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Rishi Sunak has suggested that Liz Truss would “spook” international investors if she threatened the independence of the Bank of England.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/aug/23/liz-truss-tax-plan-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-uk-politics-live

    Its like the end of Sixth Sense. Liz Truss is a ghost!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Depends on what you mean by “better”?

    If you mean minimising the long term damage to society and the economy, then yes, Sweden did better. A lot better.

    Sweden was playing the long game. Most of the rest of the world was running about like a headless chicken.

    One shudders to think what’s going to happen when a *real* killer pandemic shows up.

  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,080

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
  • Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
    I think you may be correct
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Sounds great to me. Assuming I haven't already fallen off the perch I will be 78 in 2040.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,005
    Leon said:

    BREAKING

    AND THIS IS IMPORTANT

    I’m having lunch right here with the kiddo



    And I asked the waiter for bruschetta and pronounced it brooshetta as posh Italians have told me it is NOT broosketta and I like to do it the posh way

    But the Italian waiter just called it broosketta

    😶😶😶

    What is right???

    "broosketta" is correct. except you're in florence, so it should be "crostini"

    eat well. check out il santo bevitore if you have time
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,822
    Stocky said:

    Ironically, I've got covid right now.


    Fortunately, I'm triple-jabbed and feeling okay-ish. Sunday night was unpleasant with the aches and pains all through my body, plus headache and nausea, but it lightened up through Monday and today I'm just a bit tired, a little achy, and with a sore throat and cough.

    Very grateful I didn't get it until fully protected.

    What is the latest with the fourth jab?
    This autumn, a bivalent Moderna vaccine covering Omicron and original. Over 55s, health and social care workers, clinically vulnerable people and their carers.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    Not true. Andy already linked to reputable studies on this earlier in the thread. You just ignore anything that doesn't match your world view. Did some people die because of lockdown - I would suggest that is undeniable. Was it any where near the scale of those who died from Covid and those who would have died had we not had lockdown - no.

    If you go back and look at the start of the epidemic I was on here casting doubt on the idea of lockdowns. At the time the prospect of a vaccine seemed like being years off and all the concerns anti-lockdowners have expressed seemed reasonable to me then.

    I was wrong. The advent of vaccines, even if we didn't know it at the time, meant that the lockdowns were exactly the right thing to do. They kept people alive long enough to get them protected and able to go back to living normal lives.
    It's interesting that the exact same logic on vaccines made Toby Young into a committed anti-vaxxer.
    Because, as you point out, the advent of vaccines in a short timescale meant the restrictions were right. If, though, one were to insist that they COULDN'T be right, then the vaccines must be wrong.

    He started out by insisting that all they would do would be to reduce your chance of testing positive and have no effect on serious illness or even if you got ill at all - just change tests from positive to negative. Then he went full-blooded on "They don't work" and on to "They kill loads of people."
    Providing a daily and unquestioned platform for Clare Craig's antivaxxer HART Group to post antivax misinformation and then highlighting it. He's doing it daily.
    The person the two of you are trying to reason with is also a rabid anti-vaxxer. Which makes it doubly ironic he is accusing you of ignoring the evidence that doesn't suit you...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    ...

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    Just a single figures swing and we have crossover... from Con to LD!
    That would screw up the Progressive Alliance Tactical Voting something proper!
    I don't know Nick. On new boundaries the LDs would still only get a handful of seats on 22% and the Tories on 22% are probably just shy of a majority.
    You are being facetious I know, but.
    I put that into EC for a laugh. Lab on 42, Tories, LD's on 22 each, Greens on 5.
    Remarkably the LD's beat the Tories into Opposition!
    By 70 to 63.
    Lab majority of 234.
  • dixiedean said:

    ...

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    Just a single figures swing and we have crossover... from Con to LD!
    That would screw up the Progressive Alliance Tactical Voting something proper!
    I don't know Nick. On new boundaries the LDs would still only get a handful of seats on 22% and the Tories on 22% are probably just shy of a majority.
    You are being facetious I know, but.
    I put that into EC for a laugh. Lab on 42, Tories, LD's on 22 each, Greens on 5.
    Remarkably the LD's beat the Tories into Opposition!
    By 70 to 63.
    Lab majority of 234.
    What a beautiful day that would be
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,222
    edited August 2022

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    They did far, far better at protecting children's education than any one of their neighbours did.

    If any of their neighbours did "better" then which neighbours harmed their kids education less than they did? Which neighbours had fewer primary school closures? Which had fewer secondary school days lost proportionately?

    It's hugely ironic hearing you accusing me of knowing the value of nothing. What is the value of education in your eyes? What is the value of children's childhoods? Seemingly zero to you, only "death" matters and "life" is worthless.
    You have no way of knowing or measuring that beyond your own beliefs.
    I do have a way of knowing or measuring that, we can measure the days lost to education in the relevant countries. Sweden did better on that.

    Yet you still peddle the myth that Sweden did worse than Denmark. Despite the fact it measurably did better than Denmark on that metric.

    That is knowing the value of nothing. Unless you assign a value to education, you are deeming education and everything else worthless in the face of COVID death tables.

    I would rather take a more rounded overview than just league tables of COVID fatalities and I value education highly. Higher than you it seems.
    It is difficult to assign values to such things, but that shouldn't stop us. I concur that we should consider the cost, however defined, of disruption to education. That all said, it is apparent that you see a greater cost to education disruption than many (you appear to presume that any online education was basically worthless) and a lower cost to dying than many. The argument over metrics is a tangent.
    I don't presume online education was worthless but I think it scales. Online preschool or primary education is pretty worthless while later secondary or tertiary education might have a place for it. WFH has a place for it too.

    Similarly for non schooling education, our daughter was in the Rainbows and was by the end one of only 2 girls keeping up with it on Zoom but to be honest ten Zoom meetings for that wouldn't even match one physical one.

    I do indeed consider death to be less consequential in circumstances than education. I most definitely consider the deaths of hundreds of thousands under the circumstances a less serious tragedy than disrupting the education of many millions.

    Would I disrupt 100 children's education to keep 1 person alive for a bit longer? No. Would I disrupt tens of millions of children's education to keep hundreds of thousands of people alive for a bit longer? No. Education is too important.

    I would with respect consider three months of a child being in school, which could affect their future for the next 70 years or more potentially, to be worth far more than three months of a dementia afflicted resident of a care home whose mind and body is failing them.

    In general we consider education so serious that even missing a day or two for a holiday can lead to threats of being taken to court even with a perfect attendance record but missing months on end of education was considered inconsequential by too many here who think the one and only thing that mattered was COVID Death League Tables.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    Not true. Andy already linked to reputable studies on this earlier in the thread. You just ignore anything that doesn't match your world view. Did some people die because of lockdown - I would suggest that is undeniable. Was it any where near the scale of those who died from Covid and those who would have died had we not had lockdown - no.

    If you go back and look at the start of the epidemic I was on here casting doubt on the idea of lockdowns. At the time the prospect of a vaccine seemed like being years off and all the concerns anti-lockdowners have expressed seemed reasonable to me then.

    I was wrong. The advent of vaccines, even if we didn't know it at the time, meant that the lockdowns were exactly the right thing to do. They kept people alive long enough to get them protected and able to go back to living normal lives.
    Personally, I think we were too slow to reduce restrictions in 2021, when the majority of the population (the vulnerable bit) had been jabbed.

    That said... I think those posters (you know who you are) who claimed that governments had some secret plan to lock everyone down for ever should probably be a bit more humble.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    They did far, far better at protecting children's education than any one of their neighbours did.

    If any of their neighbours did "better" then which neighbours harmed their kids education less than they did? Which neighbours had fewer primary school closures? Which had fewer secondary school days lost proportionately?

    It's hugely ironic hearing you accusing me of knowing the value of nothing. What is the value of education in your eyes? What is the value of children's childhoods? Seemingly zero to you, only "death" matters and "life" is worthless.
    You have no way of knowing or measuring that beyond your own beliefs.
    I do have a way of knowing or measuring that, we can measure the days lost to education in the relevant countries. Sweden did better on that.

    Yet you still peddle the myth that Sweden did worse than Denmark. Despite the fact it measurably did better than Denmark on that metric.

    That is knowing the value of nothing. Unless you assign a value to education, you are deeming education and everything else worthless in the face of COVID death tables.

    I would rather take a more rounded overview than just league tables of COVID fatalities and I value education highly. Higher than you it seems.
    It is difficult to assign values to such things, but that shouldn't stop us. I concur that we should consider the cost, however defined, of disruption to education. That all said, it is apparent that you see a greater cost to education disruption than many (you appear to presume that any online education was basically worthless) and a lower cost to dying than many. The argument over metrics is a tangent.
    I don't presume online education was worthless but I think it scales. Online preschool or primary education is pretty worthless while later secondary or tertiary education might have a place for it. WFH has a place for it too.

    Similarly for non schooling education, our daughter was in the Rainbows and was by the end one of only 2 girls keeping up with it on Zoom but to be honest ten Zoom meetings for that wouldn't even match one physical one.

    I do indeed consider death to be less consequential in circumstances than education. I most definitely consider the deaths of hundreds of thousands under the circumstances a less serious tragedy than disrupting the education of many millions.

    I would with respect consider three months of a child being in school, which could affect their future for the next 70 years or more potentially, to be worth far more than three months of a dementia afflicted resident of a care home whose mind and body is failing them.

    In general we consider education so serious that even missing a day or two for a holiday can lead to threats of being taken to court even with a perfect attendance record but missing months on end of education was considered inconsequential by too many here who think the one and only thing that mattered was COVID Death League Tables.
    How consequential to your daughter would be your death?
    Not being mean - over 13,000 kids had exactly that happen to them due to covid (loss of a parent) and under your preferred route, the number would have been a large multiple of that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    dixiedean said:

    ...

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    Just a single figures swing and we have crossover... from Con to LD!
    That would screw up the Progressive Alliance Tactical Voting something proper!
    I don't know Nick. On new boundaries the LDs would still only get a handful of seats on 22% and the Tories on 22% are probably just shy of a majority.
    You are being facetious I know, but.
    I put that into EC for a laugh. Lab on 42, Tories, LD's on 22 each, Greens on 5.
    Remarkably the LD's beat the Tories into Opposition!
    By 70 to 63.
    Lab majority of 234.
    Never trust UNS!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505

    Rishi Sunak has suggested that Liz Truss would “spook” international investors if she threatened the independence of the Bank of England.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/aug/23/liz-truss-tax-plan-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-uk-politics-live

    He's just trashing what little is left of his reputation at this point.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Lockdown was both necessary and successful.

    #stoprewritinghistory

    I'm surprised and disappointed to hear you say that. It was a disgrace. And, to my mind, illegal.
    Defining "lockdown" as -

    A period where distancing between people was enforced via stay at home order plus WFH plus closure of shops and hospitality. Objective - stop Covid overwhelming the NHS and running riot in the community.

    This was necessary and it did work.

    What we can certainly debate is stuff like -

    Did it start too late?
    Did it go on too long?
    Was the balance right between law and guidance?
    Were the rules too complex and intrusive?
    Should schools have been kept open?
    Was the care home regime inhumane?
    Etc

    But let us not pretend there was a viable big picture alternative to what we did, ie an option to just "trust the people" and the government do nothing. We had to enforce distancing to hamper the spread of the bug at critical times - this was Lockdown and it *was* necessary. I can't see how anybody can argue otherwise without retrospectively changing the facts of the pandemic.
    Another old bloke, retired even, in a charming big house can't understand why everyone is making such a fuss about lockdowns.
    I can understand the fuss but I'm not a fan of covid denial. It's infantile.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    edited August 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Yes, and its not like we can do the 29 billion 'till April' thing and avoid having to extend it anyway. Its incumbant on the government to plan to a possible exit and a longer term strategy
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Lockdown was both necessary and successful.

    #stoprewritinghistory

    I'm surprised and disappointed to hear you say that. It was a disgrace. And, to my mind, illegal.
    Defining "lockdown" as -

    A period where distancing between people was enforced via stay at home order plus WFH plus closure of shops and hospitality. Objective - stop Covid overwhelming the NHS and running riot in the community.

    This was necessary and it did work.

    What we can certainly debate is stuff like -

    Did it start too late?
    Did it go on too long?
    Was the balance right between law and guidance?
    Were the rules too complex and intrusive?
    Should schools have been kept open?
    Was the care home regime inhumane?
    Etc

    But let us not pretend there was a viable big picture alternative to what we did, ie an option to just "trust the people" and the government do nothing. We had to enforce distancing to hamper the spread of the bug at critical times - this was Lockdown and it *was* necessary. I can't see how anybody can argue otherwise without retrospectively changing the facts of the pandemic.
    Another old bloke, retired even, in a charming big house can't understand why everyone is making such a fuss about lockdowns.
    I can understand the fuss but I'm not a fan of covid denial. It's infantile.
    The very term "covid denial" is infantile.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
    I think you may be correct
    Kantor tends to report lower Lab totals and smaller gap between the parties, normally in same ball park as Opinium swingback. A five or even six gap, like 33-39, from Kantor would be very good for Labour. Though still probably wake BJO from his slumber 🙂
  • The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    They did far, far better at protecting children's education than any one of their neighbours did.

    If any of their neighbours did "better" then which neighbours harmed their kids education less than they did? Which neighbours had fewer primary school closures? Which had fewer secondary school days lost proportionately?

    It's hugely ironic hearing you accusing me of knowing the value of nothing. What is the value of education in your eyes? What is the value of children's childhoods? Seemingly zero to you, only "death" matters and "life" is worthless.
    You have no way of knowing or measuring that beyond your own beliefs.
    I do have a way of knowing or measuring that, we can measure the days lost to education in the relevant countries. Sweden did better on that.

    Yet you still peddle the myth that Sweden did worse than Denmark. Despite the fact it measurably did better than Denmark on that metric.

    That is knowing the value of nothing. Unless you assign a value to education, you are deeming education and everything else worthless in the face of COVID death tables.

    I would rather take a more rounded overview than just league tables of COVID fatalities and I value education highly. Higher than you it seems.
    I value it highly. I just dispute your ignorant view that the few months the children had learning from home rather than school will have made that much difference. As it is we start kids at least a couple of years too early at school and the way extremists like you go on you would have thought they missed their whole education and were being cast out into the world with no schooling at all.

    You pick on education because you think it makes your anti-lockdown and anti-elderly point for you. I doubt you care very much about children's education at all beyond using it as a weapon in your arguments.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    WTF is Mogg doing in that meeting? He is currently Brexit Ideas Minister. Nothing to do with energy or finance.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
    I think you may be correct
    Kantor tends to report lower Lab totals and smaller gap between the parties, normally in same ball park as Opinium swingback. A five or even six gap, like 33-39, from Kantor would be very good for Labour. Though still probably wake BJO from his slumber 🙂
    We have a red wall poll at 5. That was 15 points lead last time
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    "Even the Telegraph admitted..."

    In an article that sparked all of this because it was a pile of crap and based on "We don't like lockdowns so the excess deaths must have been lockdowns."

    Whilst a far better analysis with far more work came up with the actual answer.

    Bringing up the other side of the ledger really is uncomfortable for you, isn't it Andy?

    Lockdowns kill people who would have survived covid. Suicides, missed medical diagnoses, upsurges in obesity due to inactivity, poverty caused by incurring crushing debt paying people to do nothing. Many more have their life chances ruined.

    Deal with it.
    Yes, a great pity there wasn't a pain-free costless way to deal with the pandemic.

    Ah well. Nice for all the little children to pretend there might have been.
  • The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Depends on what you mean by “better”?

    If you mean minimising the long term damage to society and the economy, then yes, Sweden did better. A lot better.

    Sweden was playing the long game. Most of the rest of the world was running about like a headless chicken.

    One shudders to think what’s going to happen when a *real* killer pandemic shows up.

    Everyone in Sweden will die. Because you will continue to believe that what you did last time was the right way to go.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    edited August 2022
    kinabalu said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    "Even the Telegraph admitted..."

    In an article that sparked all of this because it was a pile of crap and based on "We don't like lockdowns so the excess deaths must have been lockdowns."

    Whilst a far better analysis with far more work came up with the actual answer.

    Bringing up the other side of the ledger really is uncomfortable for you, isn't it Andy?

    Lockdowns kill people who would have survived covid. Suicides, missed medical diagnoses, upsurges in obesity due to inactivity, poverty caused by incurring crushing debt paying people to do nothing. Many more have their life chances ruined.

    Deal with it.
    Yes, a great pity there wasn't a pain-free costless way to deal with the pandemic.

    Ah well. Nice for all the little children to pretend there might have been.
    Lockdown zealots are the people who pretended that there was, and it was called lockdown.
  • rcs1000 said:

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    Not true. Andy already linked to reputable studies on this earlier in the thread. You just ignore anything that doesn't match your world view. Did some people die because of lockdown - I would suggest that is undeniable. Was it any where near the scale of those who died from Covid and those who would have died had we not had lockdown - no.

    If you go back and look at the start of the epidemic I was on here casting doubt on the idea of lockdowns. At the time the prospect of a vaccine seemed like being years off and all the concerns anti-lockdowners have expressed seemed reasonable to me then.

    I was wrong. The advent of vaccines, even if we didn't know it at the time, meant that the lockdowns were exactly the right thing to do. They kept people alive long enough to get them protected and able to go back to living normal lives.
    Personally, I think we were too slow to reduce restrictions in 2021, when the majority of the population (the vulnerable bit) had been jabbed.

    That said... I think those posters (you know who you are) who claimed that governments had some secret plan to lock everyone down for ever should probably be a bit more humble.
    Oh I agree with you about the speed of reduction. Once we had the vaccines that is a completely different matter.

    Funny how so many of those who were making the claims about the ulterior motives behind lockdowns are so dedicated to the point of view they were a waste of time now their conspiracy theories have come to nothing.
  • IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
    I think you may be correct
    Kantor tends to report lower Lab totals and smaller gap between the parties, normally in same ball park as Opinium swingback. A five or even six gap, like 33-39, from Kantor would be very good for Labour. Though still probably wake BJO from his slumber 🙂
    We have a red wall poll at 5. That was 15 points lead last time
    Ooh, how exciting!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Lockdown was both necessary and successful.

    #stoprewritinghistory

    I'm surprised and disappointed to hear you say that. It was a disgrace. And, to my mind, illegal.
    Defining "lockdown" as -

    A period where distancing between people was enforced via stay at home order plus WFH plus closure of shops and hospitality. Objective - stop Covid overwhelming the NHS and running riot in the community.

    This was necessary and it did work.

    What we can certainly debate is stuff like -

    Did it start too late?
    Did it go on too long?
    Was the balance right between law and guidance?
    Were the rules too complex and intrusive?
    Should schools have been kept open?
    Was the care home regime inhumane?
    Etc

    But let us not pretend there was a viable big picture alternative to what we did, ie an option to just "trust the people" and the government do nothing. We had to enforce distancing to hamper the spread of the bug at critical times - this was Lockdown and it *was* necessary. I can't see how anybody can argue otherwise without retrospectively changing the facts of the pandemic.
    Can we also debate the question, what about the people our restrictions, as opposed to the virus, are going to kill?

    Because its demonstrably true now, that lockdowns kill people who would have survived covid.
    Of course. Pros and cons.

    And seeing some 'debate' from you would be quite a thrill.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Gets home, sees long and fractious circular conversation on a subject we’d all hoped would never come up again, logs off to see how Ukraine is doing…
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    WTF is Mogg doing in that meeting? He is currently Brexit Ideas Minister. Nothing to do with energy or finance.
    Gaze into the crystal ball... f*****' Energy Minister!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 8,685
    edited August 2022

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    It is just borrowing a barnload of money, isn't it?

    Which may be the right thing to do, but makes it a lot easier to be generous.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
    I think you may be correct
    Kantor tends to report lower Lab totals and smaller gap between the parties, normally in same ball park as Opinium swingback. A five or even six gap, like 33-39, from Kantor would be very good for Labour. Though still probably wake BJO from his slumber 🙂
    We have a red wall poll at 5. That was 15 points lead last time
    If this movement in the polls starts to look uniform, the mainstream media may latch on to it, start heaping pressure on to the Tories about urgency for details and announcements?

    Tory MPs may come on and blame too much blue on blue for the poll slump - but the truth maybe the country is listening for something positive for them, and keen on government action, and not getting it?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    It is just borrowing a barnload of money, isn't it?

    Which may be the right thing to do, but makes it a lot easier to be generous.
    Any solution is going to involve borrowing a barnload of money...
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,936
    Sandpit said:

    Gets home, sees long and fractious circular conversation on a subject we’d all hoped would never come up again, logs off to see how Ukraine is doing…

    Makes a change from Brexit though, doesn't it?

    Now, let's discuss: Brexit/the EU* caused Covid/Covid lockdowns*

    *Argue according to personal viewpoint
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    WTF is Mogg doing in that meeting? He is currently Brexit Ideas Minister. Nothing to do with energy or finance.
    Gaze into the crystal ball... f*****' Energy Minister!
    Oh, that would just be genius. But only if the story that Truss is a deep placed agent for the Liberals!!

    Can you imagine nightly TV conferences with the Mogg imploring us to save energy to save Britain in his two piece suits and top hat? Just before the lights go out for the rest of the evening.

    I'm calling it: Tories to be sub-20% in polls by February.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,592

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Sounds great to me. Assuming I haven't already fallen off the perch I will be 78 in 2040.
    It’s the price we need to pay to defeat the menace of Putin. So be it.

    18 years down the line I don’t think I’ll be too concerned either.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    WTF is Mogg doing in that meeting? He is currently Brexit Ideas Minister. Nothing to do with energy or finance.
    Gaze into the crystal ball... f*****' Energy Minister!
    HIs brief will be to produce enough hot air to power every house in Britain this winter.

    You know, it could just work...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214
    Driver said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    It is just borrowing a barnload of money, isn't it?

    Which may be the right thing to do, but makes it a lot easier to be generous.
    Any solution is going to involve borrowing a barnload of money...
    This term of office is going down in history books as the Tories as the High Tax party - do they want to add high debt “no money left” tag to that?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    FWIW, the guy who writes the business column in Guardian thinks it is worth looking at seriously.

    Others though have warned it will be a bonanza for city lawyers.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    Sandpit said:

    Gets home, sees long and fractious circular conversation on a subject we’d all hoped would never come up again, logs off to see how Ukraine is doing…

    Yes I dropped a bit of a trolling hand grenade on covid serval hours ago and regret it now.

    In Ukraine, are we looking at the current “1000 bee stings” style of counter offensive until Western weapons shipments have more or less destroyed Russian reserves of materiel and their military collapses? Or will the Russians start ceding ground far sooner? I can’t see that the Ukrainians will launch a heavy counteroffensive that risks many thousands of lives of the style of Russia’s initial invasion.
  • IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
    I think you may be correct
    Kantor tends to report lower Lab totals and smaller gap between the parties, normally in same ball park as Opinium swingback. A five or even six gap, like 33-39, from Kantor would be very good for Labour. Though still probably wake BJO from his slumber 🙂
    We have a red wall poll at 5. That was 15 points lead last time
    If this movement in the polls starts to look uniform, the mainstream media may latch on to it, start heaping pressure on to the Tories about urgency for details and announcements?

    Tory MPs may come on and blame too much blue on blue for the poll slump - but the truth maybe the country is listening for something positive for them, and keen on government action, and not getting it?
    It is frustrating and annoying but only a couple of weeks now before PM Truss and her proposals made public
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    But for the Tories to come back in the polls, they need to extend the windfall tax don’t they - though voters demand this as part of the deal?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,741

    Ironically, I've got covid right now.


    Fortunately, I'm triple-jabbed and feeling okay-ish. Sunday night was unpleasant with the aches and pains all through my body, plus headache and nausea, but it lightened up through Monday and today I'm just a bit tired, a little achy, and with a sore throat and cough.

    Very grateful I didn't get it until fully protected.

    Consistent with my recent COVID “it’s a bad cold” “might as well take a test” “Positive”. Felt like a bad winter cold - not the worst, with “added tiredness” the only major difference and none of the usual COVID symptoms apart from an intermittent cough. The tiredness did drag on - as did testing positive a week later (which you can on an LFT long after you’re no longer infectious”.) By the time my mind was on other matters I was no longer testing positive (4 separate tests).

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    FWIW, the guy who writes the business column in Guardian thinks it is worth looking at seriously.

    Others though have warned it will be a bonanza for city lawyers.

    Why should it be a bonanza for lawyers ? No assets from BP or Shell are being appropriated here. A few claims from people that have fixed over the cap perhaps - but I'm sure they'll live.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,324
    kinabalu said:

    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Lockdown was both necessary and successful.

    #stoprewritinghistory

    I'm surprised and disappointed to hear you say that. It was a disgrace. And, to my mind, illegal.
    Defining "lockdown" as -

    A period where distancing between people was enforced via stay at home order plus WFH plus closure of shops and hospitality. Objective - stop Covid overwhelming the NHS and running riot in the community.

    This was necessary and it did work.

    What we can certainly debate is stuff like -

    Did it start too late?
    Did it go on too long?
    Was the balance right between law and guidance?
    Were the rules too complex and intrusive?
    Should schools have been kept open?
    Was the care home regime inhumane?
    Etc

    But let us not pretend there was a viable big picture alternative to what we did, ie an option to just "trust the people" and the government do nothing. We had to enforce distancing to hamper the spread of the bug at critical times - this was Lockdown and it *was* necessary. I can't see how anybody can argue otherwise without retrospectively changing the facts of the pandemic.
    Can we also debate the question, what about the people our restrictions, as opposed to the virus, are going to kill?

    Because its demonstrably true now, that lockdowns kill people who would have survived covid.
    Of course. Pros and cons.

    And seeing some 'debate' from you would be quite a thrill.
    Always plays the same tune. Only variation is the volume.
  • The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    They did far, far better at protecting children's education than any one of their neighbours did.

    If any of their neighbours did "better" then which neighbours harmed their kids education less than they did? Which neighbours had fewer primary school closures? Which had fewer secondary school days lost proportionately?

    It's hugely ironic hearing you accusing me of knowing the value of nothing. What is the value of education in your eyes? What is the value of children's childhoods? Seemingly zero to you, only "death" matters and "life" is worthless.
    You have no way of knowing or measuring that beyond your own beliefs.
    I do have a way of knowing or measuring that, we can measure the days lost to education in the relevant countries. Sweden did better on that.

    Yet you still peddle the myth that Sweden did worse than Denmark. Despite the fact it measurably did better than Denmark on that metric.

    That is knowing the value of nothing. Unless you assign a value to education, you are deeming education and everything else worthless in the face of COVID death tables.

    I would rather take a more rounded overview than just league tables of COVID fatalities and I value education highly. Higher than you it seems.
    It is difficult to assign values to such things, but that shouldn't stop us. I concur that we should consider the cost, however defined, of disruption to education. That all said, it is apparent that you see a greater cost to education disruption than many (you appear to presume that any online education was basically worthless) and a lower cost to dying than many. The argument over metrics is a tangent.
    I don't presume online education was worthless but I think it scales. Online preschool or primary education is pretty worthless while later secondary or tertiary education might have a place for it. WFH has a place for it too.

    Similarly for non schooling education, our daughter was in the Rainbows and was by the end one of only 2 girls keeping up with it on Zoom but to be honest ten Zoom meetings for that wouldn't even match one physical one.

    I do indeed consider death to be less consequential in circumstances than education. I most definitely consider the deaths of hundreds of thousands under the circumstances a less serious tragedy than disrupting the education of many millions.

    I would with respect consider three months of a child being in school, which could affect their future for the next 70 years or more potentially, to be worth far more than three months of a dementia afflicted resident of a care home whose mind and body is failing them.

    In general we consider education so serious that even missing a day or two for a holiday can lead to threats of being taken to court even with a perfect attendance record but missing months on end of education was considered inconsequential by too many here who think the one and only thing that mattered was COVID Death League Tables.
    How consequential to your daughter would be your death?
    Not being mean - over 13,000 kids had exactly that happen to them due to covid (loss of a parent) and under your preferred route, the number would have been a large multiple of that.
    Not mean it's a very good question and the answer is very consequential. So consequential in fact that if anything ever happened to me I would hope they would be given the love and support they need from their friends and teachers etc as well as our family to help them process that grief.

    Sadly it happens all too often, last study I saw (pre pandemic) said there's over 300k pupils 5-16 had lost a parent or a sibling. My daughter's friend in her class recently lost her dad, not from COVID I think, its tragic but what's more shocking is that since they have 30 pupils in their class that's actually in line with the national average. 1/29 pupils have lost a parent or sibling.

    I'm not sure telling grieving young children they need to be at home and can't see their friends or teachers in person aids with that grief process. I hope nothing happens to me, but if anything does, I hope my kids will still be surrounded by love from others.
  • Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. Diseases will always kill us and if they don't then I have bad news about life in any case.
    2. I can totally understand that the government, looking as we all did at those pictures from Italy of people dying in the corridors, had to do something and lockdowns was it.
    3. The whole point of society is a balance. Tragically it is not to keep every Archie alive at the expense of others who would benefit from those resources.

    Once the NHS was in no danger of "collapsing" as in real collapse, not the collapse that the Graun and the various health unions call every other week, then there should absolutely have been no more lockdowns.

    There should have been compensation for pubs if they wanted to close and teachers if they wanted to stay home but no mandate.

    Our freedoms are so precious and the great and good of PB dismiss them instantly and soil themselves at the first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years. Doesn't bode well for the future.

    Which is a greater threat to Freedom: a temporary measure in the face of a novel pandemic, or a sustained campaign by government to restrict political protest and dissent? Is the collapse of the Court system due to chronic neglect perhaps a more pernicious threat? Is the drive to ban freedom of speech under the guise of Fighting Wokery more problematic? Are restrictions on the right to strike actually more consequential? I think one can debate whether temporary lockdowns were really the "first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years".

    But, sure, lockdowns should be avoided. The way to avoid lockdowns is with better public health measures. We can look at a country like Japan that never had a national lockdown and had far fewer COVID cases. A better Test & Trace system, with more support for people self-isolating, would have been a huge help in the UK. A better funded primary health care system would have helped.

    This ain't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, do public health better.
    No, it isn't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, don't implement lockdowns.
    How would you have hampered the spread of the virus at those critical times then?

    It spread via close contact between people remember - not by black magic.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    FWIW, the guy who writes the business column in Guardian thinks it is worth looking at seriously.

    Others though have warned it will be a bonanza for city lawyers.

    The govt would probably get cover from the public in the way they did during Covid. The 'doing whats necessary' premium
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    FWIW, the guy who writes the business column in Guardian thinks it is worth looking at seriously.

    Others though have warned it will be a bonanza for city lawyers.

    Why should it be a bonanza for lawyers ? No assets from BP or Shell are being appropriated here. A few claims from people that have fixed over the cap perhaps - but I'm sure they'll live.
    I think they mean the complexities of setting up the fund, getting government to underwrite and multiple loans from Barclays and co to be repaid over the next decade via extra from each customer.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    Forced selling below market prices ?

    Doesn't the gov't lose with this approach this in court very very swiftly to BP and Shell's lawyers ?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    Thank goodness we paid down the Covid debt so quickly.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,415

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    The mere fact that it's the energy companies favoured solution suggests to me it requires precisely this kind of scrutiny.

    One way or another, the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for a lot of debt - but how much of that should be going into energy suppliers profits?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    FWIW, the guy who writes the business column in Guardian thinks it is worth looking at seriously.

    Others though have warned it will be a bonanza for city lawyers.

    Why should it be a bonanza for lawyers ? No assets from BP or Shell are being appropriated here. A few claims from people that have fixed over the cap perhaps - but I'm sure they'll live.
    I think they mean the complexities of setting up the fund, getting government to underwrite and multiple loans from Barclays and co to be repaid over the next decade via extra from each customer.

    The unit price for electricity & gas simply remains higher than it otherwise would have been I think - eventually the books balance.
    The state is underwriting the loans, so like Covid no risk to the banks. Unlike covid since it's all rinsed out in the unit price both present and future it can't (easily) be defrauded either.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. Diseases will always kill us and if they don't then I have bad news about life in any case.
    2. I can totally understand that the government, looking as we all did at those pictures from Italy of people dying in the corridors, had to do something and lockdowns was it.
    3. The whole point of society is a balance. Tragically it is not to keep every Archie alive at the expense of others who would benefit from those resources.

    Once the NHS was in no danger of "collapsing" as in real collapse, not the collapse that the Graun and the various health unions call every other week, then there should absolutely have been no more lockdowns.

    There should have been compensation for pubs if they wanted to close and teachers if they wanted to stay home but no mandate.

    Our freedoms are so precious and the great and good of PB dismiss them instantly and soil themselves at the first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years. Doesn't bode well for the future.

    Which is a greater threat to Freedom: a temporary measure in the face of a novel pandemic, or a sustained campaign by government to restrict political protest and dissent? Is the collapse of the Court system due to chronic neglect perhaps a more pernicious threat? Is the drive to ban freedom of speech under the guise of Fighting Wokery more problematic? Are restrictions on the right to strike actually more consequential? I think one can debate whether temporary lockdowns were really the "first real test of freedom that we in the UK have had for 80 years".

    But, sure, lockdowns should be avoided. The way to avoid lockdowns is with better public health measures. We can look at a country like Japan that never had a national lockdown and had far fewer COVID cases. A better Test & Trace system, with more support for people self-isolating, would have been a huge help in the UK. A better funded primary health care system would have helped.

    This ain't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, do public health better.
    No, it isn't rocket science. If you don't want lockdowns, don't implement lockdowns.
    How would you have hampered the spread of the virus at those critical times then?

    It spread via close contact between people remember - not by black magic.
    Strong advice, not legislation. And this would have included strong advice to organisations and companies to stop doing counterproductive things, like supermarkets cutting their hours, which merely ensured that the average number of people in their shops at any given time was higher than it needed to be.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,324

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    Thank goodness we paid down the Covid debt so quickly.
    Yes, phew. Just before inflation-driven interest rate rises start to hit.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    Forced selling below market prices ?

    Doesn't the gov't lose with this approach this in court very very swiftly to BP and Shell's lawyers ?
    The cap already does that. Besides I wonder if they would have reasonable cause to argue that there is a cartel in operation on energy prices and threaten re-nationalisation if it goes anywhere near court.

    As I said I am not necessarily advocating this, just exploring the possibilities.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    kyf_100 said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    The mere fact that it's the energy companies favoured solution suggests to me it requires precisely this kind of scrutiny.

    One way or another, the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for a lot of debt - but how much of that should be going into energy suppliers profits?
    Even if Shell, BP and a few other North sea odds and sods were nationalised at a cost of ~ £500 billion or some such we're still importing half our gas from overseas.
    I wouldn't have started from here, but I can't see a better solution.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    "Even the Telegraph admitted..."

    In an article that sparked all of this because it was a pile of crap and based on "We don't like lockdowns so the excess deaths must have been lockdowns."

    Whilst a far better analysis with far more work came up with the actual answer.

    Bringing up the other side of the ledger really is uncomfortable for you, isn't it Andy?

    Lockdowns kill people who would have survived covid. Suicides, missed medical diagnoses, upsurges in obesity due to inactivity, poverty caused by incurring crushing debt paying people to do nothing. Many more have their life chances ruined.

    Deal with it.
    Yes, a great pity there wasn't a pain-free costless way to deal with the pandemic.

    Ah well. Nice for all the little children to pretend there might have been.
    Lockdown zealots are the people who pretended that there was, and it was called lockdown.
    So identify one, with quotations betraying that belief.

    What on earth is the point of this infantile strawmannery?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    edited August 2022
    I suppose the crucial question for anyone betting on a Tory bounce is how long the interval will be between "Meet the new boss" and "Same as the old boss".
  • Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    Forced selling below market prices ?

    Doesn't the gov't lose with this approach this in court very very swiftly to BP and Shell's lawyers ?
    Yup, I've forgotten the stat from a work report but there's also a lot of pension funds who hold shares in energy companies, those dividends and loss therein is going to annoy a lot of pensioners, are the government going to piss off their core vote?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    Tbh £100 billion is pretty cheap compared to the de facto alternative of complete economic shutdown.
    Also by 2060 we should have full renewable and battery power so our kid's bills will be cheaper then.
    Good afternoon

    This is the scheme I referred to some time ago and that Truss was interested

    Thank goodness we paid down the Covid debt so quickly.
    Yes, phew. Just before inflation-driven interest rate rises start to hit.
    We're getting those anyway.

    Households would have faced BOTH interest rate rises and 5 grand gas bills.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    kyf_100 said:

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    The mere fact that it's the energy companies favoured solution suggests to me it requires precisely this kind of scrutiny.

    One way or another, the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for a lot of debt - but how much of that should be going into energy suppliers profits?
    Well this is the issue with Labours plan too isnt it? Its going to cost us tens of billions either way
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    I like your thinking. But you are reducing the opportunity for grift either by the energy companies or by Government.

    Any scheme, like Sunak's furlough scheme, will undoubtedly be unnecessarily complicated and open to abuse.

    The ghost of Chancellor Osborne must be spinning in his political grave.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    IanB2 said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 31% (-3)
    LDEM: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 21 Aug

    This is yesterdays that keeps getting posted, for comedic/sanitary effect?

    Arn’t we expecting Techne - had Tories on 35 last time? And Kantor with just 4% gap last time, due too?
    Techne didnt release their tracker on Friday for some reason. Kantar is due imminently
    I bet LAB are ahead in those polls!

    DYOR 👍
    I think you may be correct
    Kantor tends to report lower Lab totals and smaller gap between the parties, normally in same ball park as Opinium swingback. A five or even six gap, like 33-39, from Kantor would be very good for Labour. Though still probably wake BJO from his slumber 🙂
    We have a red wall poll at 5. That was 15 points lead last time
    If this movement in the polls starts to look uniform, the mainstream media may latch on to it, start heaping pressure on to the Tories about urgency for details and announcements?

    Tory MPs may come on and blame too much blue on blue for the poll slump - but the truth maybe the country is listening for something positive for them, and keen on government action, and not getting it?
    It is frustrating and annoying but only a couple of weeks now before PM Truss and her proposals made public
    Maybe not, I understand the “special fiscal event” is October and devoid of usual OBR costing for us to know true implications short and long term - though I agree, to try to get from the coronation to the “this is not a crisis budget” a month later without action or even much detail will be politically courageous and the polling will show as much.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022
    Chris said:

    I suppose the crucial question for anyone betting on a Tory bounce is how long the interval will be between "Meet the new boss" and "Same as the old boss".

    I think we got fooled again.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    Chris said:

    I suppose the crucial question for anyone betting on a Tory bounce is how long the interval will be between "Meet the new boss" and "Same as the old boss".

    Is that the answer to "Give us an example of how long 1 millisecond is?"
  • FWIW - Without serious government intervention our Economic Intelligence Unit - Behavioural Team are saying the chances of a general strike and violence aren't insignificant in the next 12 months.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    I like your thinking. But you are reducing the opportunity for grift either by the energy companies or by Government.

    Any scheme, like Sunak's furlough scheme, will undoubtedly be unnecessarily complicated and open to abuse.

    The ghost of Chancellor Osborne must be spinning in his political grave.
    Then why doesn’t Osborne make a political comeback!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Anyone worked out how workable this is?
    (Though loading the costs on bill payers in the 2040s is very on-brand for a government that really doesn't give a stuff about anyone younger than about 60)

    Energy firm’s £100 billion plan to freeze energy bills for 2 years. A thread
    The Chief Executive of one of the UK’s largest energy providers presented Kwasi Kwarteng and Jacob Rees-Mogg with a £100 billion plan to stave off an energy price emergency last week...
    2/ Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power will present the same plan to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later today.
    The plan would involve the government guaranteeing loans to the energy companies enabling them to keep bills frozen while buying the gas needed....
    3/ ...for the next two years.
    £100 billion is Scottish Power’s best estimate of the difference between what it will actually cost to buy the energy and the current cap of £1971.
    Sources close to the company said that Kwasi Kwarteng, tipped to be the next Chancellor....
    4/ ..if Liz Truss is next PM, was broadly receptive to the idea. Sources close to Kwasi Kwarteng wouldn’t be drawn on his enthusiasm. “We had a meeting about it – that’s all”.
    The so called deficit fund would be repaid through bills over the next 20 or so years...


    https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1562061859401900033

    Kwarteng and Truss would be well advised to go for it, it dwarfs Labour's plan and probably leaves some room for the 400 quid direct help that Labour would remove.
    In a my future generations' debt is bigger than your future generations' debt.

    I suppose on a positive note with inflation running at 20% p a for the next twenty years the debt will have withered to nothing anyway.
    Well the cost of not freezing everyone to death this winter will be hugely increased public debt. Thems the breaks. Labour are just proposing to do it in a series of depressing interventions rather than this option of more up front but over a longer period.
    Yes, something has to be done and Liz and her Chancellor and Energy Minister have come up with a corker of a plan that shames Labour's meagre effort. But the figure...wow!
    How have the energy companies - the big ones who actually supply energy I mean rather than the small ones that were just effectively trading futures - been doing the last few years?

    Would it be viable to call their bluff? Or even possible?

    Keep the energy cap where it is or even reduce it. Let the energy companies take the pain and see how much they can take and only then step in and introduce the support scheme when they are on the verge of going bust. It would ensure that they are actually doing all they can rather than just looking for a way to support their profits.

    Should any energy company be doing more than getting by right now?

    I am not actually advocating this as I am sure there are way too many flaws in my reasoning but just thought it was worth at least discussing.
    I like your thinking. But you are reducing the opportunity for grift either by the energy companies or by Government.

    Any scheme, like Sunak's furlough scheme, will undoubtedly be unnecessarily complicated and open to abuse.

    The ghost of Chancellor Osborne must be spinning in his political grave.
    Then why doesn’t Osborne make a political comeback!
    With which party?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,808
    edited August 2022

    rcs1000 said:

    MISTY said:

    TOPPING said:

    The key reason Sweden did better during the pandemic is little to do with population density or that we are incorrigibly anti-social.

    It is to to with the independence of government agencies and the innate respect that most of the population has for the state, regional and local governments and other public agencies.

    On the schools point, it was only children 15+ who were, relatively briefly, prohibited from attending school physically. Children suffered *much* less than in the rest of Europe. That we favour our young over our old is one of the greatest triumphs, and the greatest tragedies, of modern Swedish society.

    You didn't do better. Compared to your neighbours you did far worse. Now extremists like Bart - typical of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing - seem to think this was a price worth paying but most reasonable people would disagree with him.
    Neighbours, schmeighbours. Sweden IIRC outperformed many, most if not all other countries, from memory. In particular wrt excess deaths:

    Googled link: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext

    Did it do worse than its immediate neighbours? Depends. It did better than Denmark (which has a very high population density) but worse than Norway (which has a comparatively tiny population density).

    imo weighed the balances well and overall I have no doubt will experience fewer post-covid problems, undiagnosed illnesses, mental health issues.

    And that's to say nothing of the freedom issue which you seem to dismiss, you of all people, as being of little or no import.
    It did worse than Denmark.

    Deaths per 1 million population

    (UK 2,724) For reference
    Sweden 1,920
    Denmark 1,177
    Finland 983
    Norway 706.

    Freedom is indeed important. But the temporary (and honestly very slight) limits on freedom we suffered were really as nothing compared to the rather more serious curtailment of freedom that results from being dead.

    The premise you put forth of a choice between lockdown and death is utterly spurious.

    Evidence mounts every month that lockdowns actually caused the deaths of people who were at no risk from covid whatever, so much so even the Telegraph admitted the other day the cure may have been more deadly than the disease.
    Not true. Andy already linked to reputable studies on this earlier in the thread. You just ignore anything that doesn't match your world view. Did some people die because of lockdown - I would suggest that is undeniable. Was it any where near the scale of those who died from Covid and those who would have died had we not had lockdown - no.

    If you go back and look at the start of the epidemic I was on here casting doubt on the idea of lockdowns. At the time the prospect of a vaccine seemed like being years off and all the concerns anti-lockdowners have expressed seemed reasonable to me then.

    I was wrong. The advent of vaccines, even if we didn't know it at the time, meant that the lockdowns were exactly the right thing to do. They kept people alive long enough to get them protected and able to go back to living normal lives.
    Personally, I think we were too slow to reduce restrictions in 2021, when the majority of the population (the vulnerable bit) had been jabbed.

    That said... I think those posters (you know who you are) who claimed that governments had some secret plan to lock everyone down for ever should probably be a bit more humble.
    Oh I agree with you about the speed of reduction. Once we had the vaccines that is a completely different matter.

    Funny how so many of those who were making the claims about the ulterior motives behind lockdowns are so dedicated to the point of view they were a waste of time now their conspiracy theories have come to nothing.
    The best cure for conspiracy theorists is to work in or with central government. When you've done that you see how most civil servants are too lazy and incompetent to conspire their way out of a paper bag.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    Chris said:

    I suppose the crucial question for anyone betting on a Tory bounce is how long the interval will be between "Meet the new boss" and "Same as the old boss".

    In broad terms
    Major - 4 months
    Brown - 3 to 4 months
    May - a year until she bottled the debate and 'nothing has changed'
    Johnson - cut and run after 3 months
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022

    FWIW - Without serious government intervention our Economic Intelligence Unit - Behavioural Team are saying the chances of a general strike and violence aren't insignificant in the next 12 months.

    We're not French you know!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    FWIW - Without serious government intervention our Economic Intelligence Unit - Behavioural Team are saying the chances of a general strike and violence aren't insignificant in the next 12 months.

    Ive predicted mass civil unrest in at least 2 EU countries this winter, probably more. Risk also high here.
This discussion has been closed.