Howdy, Stranger!

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

Whilst CON MPs don’t decide who leads they can sack the winner – politicalbetting.com

1468910

Comments

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050
    edited August 2022
    Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So what do you reckon will be in this Emergency Budget then?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,921
    Scott_xP said:

    Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi on energy consumption:

    "The reality is that we should all look at our energy consumption. It is a difficult time."

    First time a senior minister has suggested this?


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1563105854248734729

    You lot will still pay to heat my stables this winter, he did not add...

    I'm all for reducing consumption for economies, but it's well past that. We are using 25% less energy than last year, but our bill overall has almost doubled already, never mind October
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,741
    Game changer for the SMO! SKS is going to Keev!

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/25/keir-starmer-planning-ukraine-trip-kyiv-zelenskiy-labour

    He wants a star on the Avenue of Glory like Johnson.


  • Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,523
    fox327 said:

    I foresee an energy policy for the UK government until the crisis is resolved:

    1) Businesses must pay the market rate.
    2) All residential energy consumers must have compulsory installation of a smart meter.
    3) Low energy use will be encouraged. Each successive unit used by a consumer will cost more than the previous unit that day.
    4) Even rich consumers may be asked to pay for their energy in advance.
    5) Until the plan is implemented there may be blackouts at times.

    These are emergency measures, but COVID has shown that the country will accept temporary extreme emergency measures.

    That will put all small businesses with premises out of business overnight. No takeaways, no pubs, no restaurants etc etc.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,736

    Julian Jessop 🇬🇧 🇺🇦
    @julianHjessop
    ·
    3h
    Reminder - the #Ofgem price cap sets a maximum supplier profit of less than 2%.

    And unlike #energy producers and extractors, most domestic suppliers are not currently making any profit at all.

    And yet these are the businesses some want to nationalise... 🤷‍♂️

    https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1563058124184887298

    2% of a ginormous amount of money is a huge amount of money.
  • kyf_100 said:

    So PB Brains Trust. Do we agree that the forecast fuel bills levels are unsustainable politically for the government? What options do they have since they cannot magic new generation capacity or gas supply sources in time for the coming winter? Short term actions: Price capping per unit with the difference paid by government borrowing? Force majeure stopping North Sea gas exports from the UK? Long term actions: Orders in council to start mass fracking pilots with protesting made illegal? Ordering micro nuke pilot plants? Building Swansea Bay tidal lagoons?

    What would you do?

    Encourage all the oldies to spend the winter in another country.

    Knock all the decrepit oldies on the head - thus solving NHS and care crises as well.

    Ban / tax outside Christmas illuminations.
    Your second suggestion is a bit extreme methinks.

    My father - who is as liberal as anyone I know - has just sent me the reform party energy plan with a comment that government had better come up with something soon or voters could shift support very quickly.
    Interesting reading.

    If there's one thing I find absolutely indisputable in that, it's that this is a "force majeure situation... warlike situation requires wartime response - energy market no longer fit for purpose".

    I don't think you need to be a reform party supporter to agree with that. All the main parties are looking at free market, peacetime solutions at the moment, completely unaware that the world has moved on and we are in a war - albeit a proxy war - with Russia. That requires a wartime response to ensure that energy supplies are protected, are triaged and given to those who need it the most, defending the economy and the most vulnerable from what is, essentially, a Russian attack.

    This is not something the market is going to fix, this is a national security issue.
    I hadn't read this before I made my suggestion but this looks, in part, quite similar to what I had said.
  • dixiedean said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So what do you reckon will be in this Emergency Budget then?
    I don't know, I'll wait and see, but some people were adamant there'd be no support for Covid ten minutes before furlough was announced.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,411

    fox327 said:

    I foresee an energy policy for the UK government until the crisis is resolved:

    1) Businesses must pay the market rate.
    2) All residential energy consumers must have compulsory installation of a smart meter.
    3) Low energy use will be encouraged. Each successive unit used by a consumer will cost more than the previous unit that day.
    4) Even rich consumers may be asked to pay for their energy in advance.
    5) Until the plan is implemented there may be blackouts at times.

    These are emergency measures, but COVID has shown that the country will accept temporary extreme emergency measures.

    That will put all small businesses with premises out of business overnight. No takeaways, no pubs, no restaurants etc etc.
    No shops.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545
    edited August 2022
    Energy providers refusing to supply small hospitality businesses or demanding up front payments from businesses already struggling, as they are concerned they won’t get paid.

    All of this going on while Bozo grandstands in Ukraine and tells us to suck it up for the greater good.

    Businesses need support now, not waiting for the hapless Truss to win to do something.

    https://twitter.com/ukhospkate/status/1563054717689032708?s=21&t=d1IWntxBbTqcI1EnJ_hMNA
  • Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188

    fox327 said:

    I foresee an energy policy for the UK government until the crisis is resolved:

    1) Businesses must pay the market rate.
    2) All residential energy consumers must have compulsory installation of a smart meter.
    3) Low energy use will be encouraged. Each successive unit used by a consumer will cost more than the previous unit that day.
    4) Even rich consumers may be asked to pay for their energy in advance.
    5) Until the plan is implemented there may be blackouts at times.

    These are emergency measures, but COVID has shown that the country will accept temporary extreme emergency measures.

    That will put all small businesses with premises out of business overnight. No takeaways, no pubs, no restaurants etc etc.
    Only the ones whose fix expires in October.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    I'm just very glad they haven't whacked up the standing charge. At least the least the incentives are in the right place.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    So PB Brains Trust. Do we agree that the forecast fuel bills levels are unsustainable politically for the government? What options do they have since they cannot magic new generation capacity or gas supply sources in time for the coming winter? Short term actions: Price capping per unit with the difference paid by government borrowing? Force majeure stopping North Sea gas exports from the UK? Long term actions: Orders in council to start mass fracking pilots with protesting made illegal? Ordering micro nuke pilot plants? Building Swansea Bay tidal lagoons?

    What would you do?

    Encourage all the oldies to spend the winter in another country.

    Knock all the decrepit oldies on the head - thus solving NHS and care crises as well.

    Ban / tax outside Christmas illuminations.
    Ban sport outside the hours of daylight. All soccer matches in the middle of winter to kick off at midday.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,736

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    A new Challenger enters the arena

    https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1563090691000938496

    Our first Westminster Voting Intention poll:

    LAB: 40%
    CON: 26%
    LDM: 11%
    GRN: 6%
    SNP: 6%

    Sample size: 1,235. Fieldwork: 22 Aug. Full tables: https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202208_GBN_W34_full.pdf


    Commissioned by GB News.

    I'm sure Leon will be commenting on the SNP figure to work out if peak SNP has passed.


    My comment is that this poll looks decidedly rogue, on multiple fronts

    I don’t doubt that Labour have a sizeable lead. But 14 points? Am Skeptical
    I - who have voted LAB in my time - consider this government to be the biggest shower of shyte of all time. However although I won't vote CON now I am certainly not voting for LAB.
    Not even if LAB promises to keep the pubs open?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,009
    Scott_xP said:

    In our regular Westminster voting intention tracker, Labour's lead has doubled to eight points in two weeks:

    Lab 41% (+2)
    Con 33% (-2)
    LibDem 11% (-1)
    Green 6% (+1)
    SNP 4% (nc)

    1,641 questioned on 17-18 August. Changes with 10-11 August.

    http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1563075063032987652/photo/1

    low 58 LLG here compared to the other polls. With Tory high on 33 They may have two much Tory vote in this sample I think.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188
    Taz said:

    So PB Brains Trust. Do we agree that the forecast fuel bills levels are unsustainable politically for the government? What options do they have since they cannot magic new generation capacity or gas supply sources in time for the coming winter? Short term actions: Price capping per unit with the difference paid by government borrowing? Force majeure stopping North Sea gas exports from the UK? Long term actions: Orders in council to start mass fracking pilots with protesting made illegal? Ordering micro nuke pilot plants? Building Swansea Bay tidal lagoons?

    What would you do?

    Encourage all the oldies to spend the winter in another country.

    Knock all the decrepit oldies on the head - thus solving NHS and care crises as well.

    Ban / tax outside Christmas illuminations.
    Ban sport outside the hours of daylight. All soccer matches in the middle of winter to kick off at midday.
    ISTR watching Wigan RL play on a Wednesday afternoon as a very young child.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Ian Dunt was seething about it on Twitter today.

    The amount of artificial anger over this is off the scale.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

  • ydoethur said:

    fox327 said:

    I foresee an energy policy for the UK government until the crisis is resolved:

    1) Businesses must pay the market rate.
    2) All residential energy consumers must have compulsory installation of a smart meter.
    3) Low energy use will be encouraged. Each successive unit used by a consumer will cost more than the previous unit that day.
    4) Even rich consumers may be asked to pay for their energy in advance.
    5) Until the plan is implemented there may be blackouts at times.

    These are emergency measures, but COVID has shown that the country will accept temporary extreme emergency measures.

    That will put all small businesses with premises out of business overnight. No takeaways, no pubs, no restaurants etc etc.
    No shops.
    A lot of shops are massively energy inefficient. Old florescent strip lights everywhere. Doors open a lot and heaters blasting hot money out the doorway. Food stores with open fridges blasting cold money into the air which then needs heating back up again.

    Savvy business owners have invested in energy-saving. Others are either focused on the core business or don't have free cashflow to invest into energy-saving, or can't borrow because business banking is on its knees.

    Remember - driving people towards "green crap" is what the incoming PM wants to stop.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232
    Taz said:

    Energy providers refusing to supply small hospitality businesses or demanding up front payments from businesses already struggling, as they are concerned they won’t get paid.

    All of this going on while Bozo grandstands in Ukraine and tells us to suck it up for the greater good.

    Businesses need support now, not waiting for the hapless Truss to win to do something.

    https://twitter.com/ukhospkate/status/1563054717689032708?s=21&t=d1IWntxBbTqcI1EnJ_hMNA

    The issue for small business is then that why would they trust that their energy supplier won't go bankrupt when so many of them have gone bust in the last couple of years?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    dixiedean said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So what do you reckon will be in this Emergency Budget then?
    I don't know, I'll wait and see, but some people were adamant there'd be no support for Covid ten minutes before furlough was announced.
    And that's her plan. Must be. Announce scheme making furlough Rishi look like a skinflint, roars of applause, poll lead. But keep quiet about it just for now till the last votes are in.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed....

    I was wondering something along the same lines.
    At current market prices, the percentage marginal profit could probably be capped at 100% and still represent a massive discount to the price over this winter.

    But how much of that gas production is already contracted at lower rates in any event ?
  • Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Whatever happened to "We love Europe, just not the EU."
    A very good reason to vote Labour is we'll actually be able to reset our relationship with our neighbours and move on from this antagonistic nonsense. Perhaps we'll even be able to find a solution to the migrant crossings by actually, you know, working constructively with the French.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
  • Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Indeed. Which is why red wall 2019 Tory mince like Jacob Young is not tweeting about the sewage crisis in his Redcar constituency or the bills crisis in his constituency but instead is tweeting about boats in the channel.

    Fear of the forrin won't keep people's heating on this winter.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232
    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Is this post produced by Dalle2, an alien or a real human?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649

    Scott_xP said:

    In our regular Westminster voting intention tracker, Labour's lead has doubled to eight points in two weeks:

    Lab 41% (+2)
    Con 33% (-2)
    LibDem 11% (-1)
    Green 6% (+1)
    SNP 4% (nc)

    1,641 questioned on 17-18 August. Changes with 10-11 August.

    http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1563075063032987652/photo/1

    low 58 LLG here compared to the other polls. With Tory high on 33 They may have two much Tory vote in this sample I think.
    Same Tory vote as Kantar and Redfield yesterday which had LLG 59. Opinium was LLG 57. In line with recent polling bang on (last Techne was only a 4 lead and Tory 35)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904
    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    Can anyone explain why the cost of energy has gone up just so much? Is it simply inelastic demand meeting reduced supply?

    I just don't understand the maths on it. I appreciate the suppliers are capped, but behind that there is a competitive (ish) wholesale market.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited August 2022

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    If you can't see that France is a friend and ally of the UK then I genuinely despair of your ability to understand the world and how it actually works, as distinct from how it is presented in Daily Mail editorials.
    France is an ally, but allied leaders don't need to be friends.

    What makes France's Macron a friend?

    Is NATO ally Turkey's Erdogan a friend too?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,523

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    She also said that her focus/priority is tax cuts.

    Which might make many reasonable people rightly question her priorities.
  • Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,921

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Whatever happened to "We love Europe, just not the EU."
    A very good reason to vote Labour is we'll actually be able to reset our relationship with our neighbours and move on from this antagonistic nonsense. Perhaps we'll even be able to find a solution to the migrant crossings by actually, you know, working constructively with the French.
    Barty is dancing on a pin to support the love of his life....
  • Eabhal said:

    Can anyone explain why the cost of energy has gone up just so much? Is it simply inelastic demand meeting reduced supply?

    I just don't understand the maths on it. I appreciate the suppliers are capped, but behind that there is a competitive (ish) wholesale market.

    The wholesale market price of gas has surged roughly 1000% due to Russia.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    edited August 2022
    Taz said:

    So PB Brains Trust. Do we agree that the forecast fuel bills levels are unsustainable politically for the government? What options do they have since they cannot magic new generation capacity or gas supply sources in time for the coming winter? Short term actions: Price capping per unit with the difference paid by government borrowing? Force majeure stopping North Sea gas exports from the UK? Long term actions: Orders in council to start mass fracking pilots with protesting made illegal? Ordering micro nuke pilot plants? Building Swansea Bay tidal lagoons?

    What would you do?

    Encourage all the oldies to spend the winter in another country.

    Knock all the decrepit oldies on the head - thus solving NHS and care crises as well.

    Ban / tax outside Christmas illuminations.
    Ban sport outside the hours of daylight. All soccer matches in the middle of winter to kick off at midday.
    Good idea. There’s loads of small things like this, that could be done to reduce energy demand over the winter. In aggregate, they could add up to quite a bit.

    IIRC, a lot of heavy industry already has energy supply contracts that allow them to be cut off during times of peak demand, in exchange for lower rates off-peak. So factories move shifts around to avoid the peak times.

    The worry is the small businesses such as shops and hospitality, who are not covered by the government support scheme for households nor the price cap. There may have to be some sort of government intervention, perhaps a business rate holiday as happened during the pandemic, to keep these businesses afloat.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188
    dixiedean said:

    Taz said:

    So PB Brains Trust. Do we agree that the forecast fuel bills levels are unsustainable politically for the government? What options do they have since they cannot magic new generation capacity or gas supply sources in time for the coming winter? Short term actions: Price capping per unit with the difference paid by government borrowing? Force majeure stopping North Sea gas exports from the UK? Long term actions: Orders in council to start mass fracking pilots with protesting made illegal? Ordering micro nuke pilot plants? Building Swansea Bay tidal lagoons?

    What would you do?

    Encourage all the oldies to spend the winter in another country.

    Knock all the decrepit oldies on the head - thus solving NHS and care crises as well.

    Ban / tax outside Christmas illuminations.
    Ban sport outside the hours of daylight. All soccer matches in the middle of winter to kick off at midday.
    ISTR watching Wigan RL play on a Wednesday afternoon as a very young child.
    It appears the three day week ban on floodlit games had an unexpected outcome.
    Sunday football.

    https://www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/100-Fan-culture/11097-holy-commotion

    I was at the Bolton v Stoke tie.
    3-2 to the Wanderers.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    France: sometimes friend, sometimes foe. In the last 100 years generally a friend, but the most hostile act against Britain, by any western nation in recent years, was Macron doubting, for no good reason, the efficacy of the AZ vaccine, as a deliberate act of spite against Brexit Britain - potentially killing thousands of people, and endangering millions

    Have we done anything like that to France? No

    France also adopted an explicit foreign policy objective that Brexit should be as painful as possible for Britain

    So Truss is quite right to be cautious and wary. The hyperventilation over this, mainly by Remoaners, is inane
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232
    Eabhal said:

    Can anyone explain why the cost of energy has gone up just so much? Is it simply inelastic demand meeting reduced supply?

    I just don't understand the maths on it. I appreciate the suppliers are capped, but behind that there is a competitive (ish) wholesale market.

    Yes it is extremely inelastic in both short term demand and short term supply. Longer term more elasticity in both, so good news is that it should therefore only last a couple of years or so before balance can be found again.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,009

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    A new Challenger enters the arena

    https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1563090691000938496

    Our first Westminster Voting Intention poll:

    LAB: 40%
    CON: 26%
    LDM: 11%
    GRN: 6%
    SNP: 6%

    Sample size: 1,235. Fieldwork: 22 Aug. Full tables: https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202208_GBN_W34_full.pdf


    Commissioned by GB News.

    I'm sure Leon will be commenting on the SNP figure to work out if peak SNP has passed.


    My comment is that this poll looks decidedly rogue, on multiple fronts

    I don’t doubt that Labour have a sizeable lead. But 14 points? Am Skeptical
    11% other others. The return of UKIP, lol
    Actually I quite like that, once you take the reform out, so many votes for fringe local independents all the time, perhaps everyone should show larger other figure?
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    She also said that her focus/priority is tax cuts.

    Which might make many reasonable people rightly question her priorities.
    She has said about eleventy times during the contest that there will be no "bungs", no handouts, no giveaways other than her tax cut. A tax cut that needs an emergency budget to implement. Tax cuts which just this morning she stated in an article with her name on it would be support to "put money back in people's pockets".

    But no no, to quote her plan is to misrepresent her. She has form here remember...
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    She also said that her focus/priority is tax cuts.

    Which might make many reasonable people rightly question her priorities.
    She also said fixing the market imbalance that has caused the price hike is a priority too.

    I agree with her priorities.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    Eabhal said:

    Can anyone explain why the cost of energy has gone up just so much? Is it simply inelastic demand meeting reduced supply?

    I just don't understand the maths on it. I appreciate the suppliers are capped, but behind that there is a competitive (ish) wholesale market.

    All driven by a bidding war for gas, and more specifically LNG transport capacity which is very inelastic.

    Coupled with some crazy economics where the gas price drives the price paid for renewables.

    As I understand it, anyway. Happy to be corrected.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited August 2022

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    She also said that her focus/priority is tax cuts.

    Which might make many reasonable people rightly question her priorities.
    She has said about eleventy times during the contest that there will be no "bungs", no handouts, no giveaways other than her tax cut. A tax cut that needs an emergency budget to implement. Tax cuts which just this morning she stated in an article with her name on it would be support to "put money back in people's pockets".

    But no no, to quote her plan is to misrepresent her. She has form here remember...
    Please quote her saying no handouts.

    Not her saying "we will give support, but we must not just give support" but literally "no giveaways".

    Again don't just take paracetamol, see the dentist, doesn't mean don't take paracetamol.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Ian Dunt was seething about it on Twitter today.

    The amount of artificial anger over this is off the scale.
    It was a stupid question and the answer even more stupid.
    France is a close ally, and whatever our differences, to suggest otherwise is damaging political playacting.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Surely that can't be right. It's clear from the polls that the Tories massive lead is entirely driven by voters' focus on boat migrants.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545
    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Well tonight thank gods it them, instead of you.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,009

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    She also said that her focus/priority is tax cuts.

    Which might make many reasonable people rightly question her priorities.
    She has said about eleventy times during the contest that there will be no "bungs", no handouts, no giveaways other than her tax cut. A tax cut that needs an emergency budget to implement. Tax cuts which just this morning she stated in an article with her name on it would be support to "put money back in people's pockets".

    But no no, to quote her plan is to misrepresent her. She has form here remember...
    Has she started calling it a budget again, not special fiscal event? That’s good it means she had relented to proper OBR costings and scrutiny. 👍🏻
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited August 2022

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    A new Challenger enters the arena

    https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1563090691000938496

    Our first Westminster Voting Intention poll:

    LAB: 40%
    CON: 26%
    LDM: 11%
    GRN: 6%
    SNP: 6%

    Sample size: 1,235. Fieldwork: 22 Aug. Full tables: https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202208_GBN_W34_full.pdf


    Commissioned by GB News.

    I'm sure Leon will be commenting on the SNP figure to work out if peak SNP has passed.


    My comment is that this poll looks decidedly rogue, on multiple fronts

    I don’t doubt that Labour have a sizeable lead. But 14 points? Am Skeptical
    11% other others. The return of UKIP, lol
    Actually I quite like that, once you take the reform out, so many votes for fringe local independents all the time, perhaps everyone should show larger other figure?
    No, because the nutter parties never achieve that level of support (Reform wont get near 2% let alone 5 and they are by far the biggest) and there arent many strong 'independants' - Jason Zadrozny in Ashfield and Claire Swire in East Devon (but shes not certain to run again)
  • Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    She also said that her focus/priority is tax cuts.

    Which might make many reasonable people rightly question her priorities.
    She has said about eleventy times during the contest that there will be no "bungs", no handouts, no giveaways other than her tax cut. A tax cut that needs an emergency budget to implement. Tax cuts which just this morning she stated in an article with her name on it would be support to "put money back in people's pockets".

    But no no, to quote her plan is to misrepresent her. She has form here remember...
    Has she started calling it a budget again, not special fiscal event? That’s good it means she had relented to proper OBR costings and scrutiny. 👍🏻
    Emergency budget. Emergency budget means no OBR.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
    Category mistake Bart. Diplomacy is the game. Calling non hostile powers friends is one of the rules of the game.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Ian Dunt was seething about it on Twitter today.

    The amount of artificial anger over this is off the scale.
    It was a stupid question and the answer even more stupid.
    France is a close ally, and whatever our differences, to suggest otherwise is damaging political playacting.
    If it was the difference between winning and losing the party election I could understand why she might do it, even though it would still be damaging the national interest. But she has already won, all she has to do is not make mistakes, bonkers to get drawn into this.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
    Category mistake Bart. Diplomacy is the game. Calling non hostile powers friends is one of the rules of the game.
    Why?

    Is Erdogan a friend? Is Victor Orban?
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    ydoethur said:

    fox327 said:

    I foresee an energy policy for the UK government until the crisis is resolved:

    1) Businesses must pay the market rate.
    2) All residential energy consumers must have compulsory installation of a smart meter.
    3) Low energy use will be encouraged. Each successive unit used by a consumer will cost more than the previous unit that day.
    4) Even rich consumers may be asked to pay for their energy in advance.
    5) Until the plan is implemented there may be blackouts at times.

    These are emergency measures, but COVID has shown that the country will accept temporary extreme emergency measures.

    That will put all small businesses with premises out of business overnight. No takeaways, no pubs, no restaurants etc etc.
    No shops.
    A lot of shops are massively energy inefficient. Old florescent strip lights everywhere. Doors open a lot and heaters blasting hot money out the doorway. Food stores with open fridges blasting cold money into the air which then needs heating back up again.

    Savvy business owners have invested in energy-saving. Others are either focused on the core business or don't have free cashflow to invest into energy-saving, or can't borrow because business banking is on its knees.

    Remember - driving people towards "green crap" is what the incoming PM wants to stop.
    The farm shop in Yorkshire that was on our local news earlier this week that was closing had open refrigeration for its cheese and meat/deli counter as well as baking bread.

    They have just scaled back so they will just focused on shipping boxes of product for home delivery.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    edited August 2022
    Eabhal said:

    Can anyone explain why the cost of energy has gone up just so much? Is it simply inelastic demand meeting reduced supply?

    I just don't understand the maths on it. I appreciate the suppliers are capped, but behind that there is a competitive (ish) wholesale market.

    There is expected to be a 15% supply crunch for gas in Europe this winter. The price elacticity of demand for gas is low , so price needs to rise a lot to effect behavioural changes that reduce demand.

    There are constraints to adding supply too, mostly around transportation, and projects to increase supply work in the medium term at best.

    In the short term, everyone just needs to use less gas, and the arguments are about how that is best achieved without leaving people unable to heat homes or run businesses during the peak demand of winter.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    You are going to be a bit stuffed if in the final hustings she says the jury is out on whether the earth is banana shaped.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,009

    Scott_xP said:

    In our regular Westminster voting intention tracker, Labour's lead has doubled to eight points in two weeks:

    Lab 41% (+2)
    Con 33% (-2)
    LibDem 11% (-1)
    Green 6% (+1)
    SNP 4% (nc)

    1,641 questioned on 17-18 August. Changes with 10-11 August.

    http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1563075063032987652/photo/1

    low 58 LLG here compared to the other polls. With Tory high on 33 They may have two much Tory vote in this sample I think.
    Same Tory vote as Kantar and Redfield yesterday which had LLG 59. Opinium was LLG 57. In line with recent polling bang on (last Techne was only a 4 lead and Tory 35)
    Opinium has swing back built in, Kantor are the Tories best friend (and I thought they hit 60, my maths is rubbish) we have to place Techne in the same bracket with them?
  • Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    fox327 said:

    I foresee an energy policy for the UK government until the crisis is resolved:

    1) Businesses must pay the market rate.
    2) All residential energy consumers must have compulsory installation of a smart meter.
    3) Low energy use will be encouraged. Each successive unit used by a consumer will cost more than the previous unit that day.
    4) Even rich consumers may be asked to pay for their energy in advance.
    5) Until the plan is implemented there may be blackouts at times.

    These are emergency measures, but COVID has shown that the country will accept temporary extreme emergency measures.

    That will put all small businesses with premises out of business overnight. No takeaways, no pubs, no restaurants etc etc.
    No shops.
    A lot of shops are massively energy inefficient. Old florescent strip lights everywhere. Doors open a lot and heaters blasting hot money out the doorway. Food stores with open fridges blasting cold money into the air which then needs heating back up again.

    Savvy business owners have invested in energy-saving. Others are either focused on the core business or don't have free cashflow to invest into energy-saving, or can't borrow because business banking is on its knees.

    Remember - driving people towards "green crap" is what the incoming PM wants to stop.
    The farm shop in Yorkshire that was on our local news earlier this week that was closing had open refrigeration for its cheese and meat/deli counter as well as baking bread.

    They have just scaled back so they will just focused on shipping boxes of product for home delivery.
    Are they mad? Direct to Consumer food sales is a ship that has sunk. A fabulous way of losing money.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited August 2022
    My upstaIrs flat which was a prison in lockdown might just be a boon this winter. All that free heat from the couple downstairs!
  • Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Not really. The companies didn't budget to produce the gas at this vastly inflated price. They were expecting the price to be a fraction of this and will still make huge profits on what they produce here in the UK.

    This is imaginary money with real life consequences. No company expected to be making it and no one needs to find it at harm to themselves except the consumer. So the only people that will; be 'paying' it are the Oil Companies with reduced profits. Yes I understand all the stuff about share holders and pension funds but to be honest what is the point of having hugely valuable pension funds if you have killed of all your pensioners?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188
    To summarise then.
    After an interminable election campaign, no one has a scooby what the winner will do about the biggest economic shock since WW 2.
    We either believe what she says.
    Or assert she's dissembling, and has some double secret probation plan.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,009
    edited August 2022

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    For the same reason you don’t go to a dinner party and be honest about how fat your friends wife is looking.

    Unless you are honest enough to tell everyone she is looking fat, in which case you are not a muppet quite like us then! 😆
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    My upstaIrs flat which was a prison in lockdown might just be a boon this winter. All that free heat from the couple downstairs!

    lo, yes, me the same. Small one bed flat in a terrace snugly heated from above, below and the sides. With floor to ceiling south facing windows, capturing maximum solarity

    On a sunny winter day the flat warms itself

    My energy bills are about as low as you can get in the UK, if you own your own place. It is the revenge of the Lonely Lockdowners on all those chortling fat cats in their big airy houses with gardens, that will now cost roughly £5bn a week to heat
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    .
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Can anyone explain why the cost of energy has gone up just so much? Is it simply inelastic demand meeting reduced supply?

    I just don't understand the maths on it. I appreciate the suppliers are capped, but behind that there is a competitive (ish) wholesale market.

    There is expected to be a 15% supply crunch for gas in Europe this winter. The price elacticity of demand for gas is high, so price needs to rise a lot to effect behavioural changes that reduce demand.

    There are constraints to adding supply too, mostly around transportation, and projects to increase supply work in the medium term at best.

    In the short term, everyone just needs to use less gas, and the arguments are about how that is best achieved without leaving people unable to heat homes or run businesses during the peak demand of winter.
    Doubled energy prices would achieve a fair amount of such a reduction.

    Allowing them to go up fee or six times without intervention will bankrupt a very large number of businesses and immiserate a very large number of households this winter.
    That would achieve a bigger reduction, but would not be optimal.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited August 2022

    Scott_xP said:

    In our regular Westminster voting intention tracker, Labour's lead has doubled to eight points in two weeks:

    Lab 41% (+2)
    Con 33% (-2)
    LibDem 11% (-1)
    Green 6% (+1)
    SNP 4% (nc)

    1,641 questioned on 17-18 August. Changes with 10-11 August.

    http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1563075063032987652/photo/1

    low 58 LLG here compared to the other polls. With Tory high on 33 They may have two much Tory vote in this sample I think.
    Same Tory vote as Kantar and Redfield yesterday which had LLG 59. Opinium was LLG 57. In line with recent polling bang on (last Techne was only a 4 lead and Tory 35)
    Opinium has swing back built in, Kantor are the Tories best friend (and I thought they hit 60, my maths is rubbish) we have to place Techne in the same bracket with them?
    Of those reporting since 'le shift' - Opinium, Kantar, Techne, BMG, Redfield all 8 to 10 lead with Tories 31 to 33
    YouGov and the new guys 15 and 14 and Tories sub 30. YouGov will report again over the next few days with fieldwork up to yesterday
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,939
    Italy update:

    Campaign and polling positions pretty stable since confirmation of the coalitions. Polling averages (note 1dp quoting is the norm for polls, so done here. Blocs capitalised):

    FdI Meloni - 24.0
    Lega Salvini - 13.5
    FI (still) Berlusconi - 7.9
    Moderates - 2.1
    RIGHT COALITION - 47.5

    PD Letta - 23.1
    Left/Green - 3.3
    More Europe - 2.0
    Civic Di Maio - 1.1
    LEFT COALITION - 29.5

    M5S Conte - 10.9

    Azione/Italia Viva Calenda / Renzi - 5.9
    (standing as single party, to exceed 3% party threshold)

    Italexit - 2.8

    Still an expected RIGHT bloc majority of over 80, based almost entirely on domination of ca. 150 FPTP seats, with proportional seats more evenly split.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,009

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    She also said that her focus/priority is tax cuts.

    Which might make many reasonable people rightly question her priorities.
    She has said about eleventy times during the contest that there will be no "bungs", no handouts, no giveaways other than her tax cut. A tax cut that needs an emergency budget to implement. Tax cuts which just this morning she stated in an article with her name on it would be support to "put money back in people's pockets".

    But no no, to quote her plan is to misrepresent her. She has form here remember...
    Has she started calling it a budget again, not special fiscal event? That’s good it means she had relented to proper OBR costings and scrutiny. 👍🏻
    Emergency budget. Emergency budget means no OBR.
    Yes it does. With the word budget in it 🙂
  • Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    For the same reason you don’t go to a dinner party and be honest about how fat your friends wife is looking.

    Unless you are honest enough to tell everyone she is looking fat, in which case you are not a muppet quite like us then! 😆
    Give over.

    Is Victor Orban a friend?
    Is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a friend?

    Was Donald Trump a friend?

    If a leader prevaricated over calling Donald Trump a friend or foe would you be so alarmed?
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    Taz said:
    So hes basically saying the same. 'Despite its leaders', 'jury out on Macron'
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,615

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
    Category mistake Bart. Diplomacy is the game. Calling non hostile powers friends is one of the rules of the game.
    Why?

    Is Erdogan a friend? Is Victor Orban?
    France and the UK have a bi-lateral military alliance signed by Cameron and Sarkozy , France and the UK need to co-operate on a range of issues so Truss’s comments aren’t exactly helpful . You need to stop digging and accept that she could have been more diplomatic .
  • Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Just also to add on your last point. In normal circumstances companies invest their money where they will get the best stable return in line with their AFEs (the planned costs of exploration, production and development). It is not the rates of tax that affect them so much when considering investment. It is the stability to allow long term planning given it can take up to a decade to get field into production.

    No one planned for these massive increases in gas prices. They never even dreamed of them. Setting a limit on the gas price for the duration of the crisis is not going to break those companies. Tie it to commitments for a stable tax a regulatory regime for the next decade and that will go a long way to dealing with the possible flight of investment.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    For the same reason you don’t go to a dinner party and be honest about how fat your friends wife is looking.

    Unless you are honest enough to tell everyone she is looking fat, in which case you are not a muppet quite like us then! 😆
    Give over.

    Is Victor Orban a friend?
    Is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a friend?

    Was Donald Trump a friend?

    If a leader prevaricated over calling Donald Trump a friend or foe would you be so alarmed?
    Grow up
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Taz said:
    Perhaps Macron could have remembered this, that we are a supposed friend, before he tried to destroy confidence in a British Covid vaccine? Just because it was British?

    As the French say: Pffff!
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    fox327 said:

    I foresee an energy policy for the UK government until the crisis is resolved:

    1) Businesses must pay the market rate.
    2) All residential energy consumers must have compulsory installation of a smart meter.
    3) Low energy use will be encouraged. Each successive unit used by a consumer will cost more than the previous unit that day.
    4) Even rich consumers may be asked to pay for their energy in advance.
    5) Until the plan is implemented there may be blackouts at times.

    These are emergency measures, but COVID has shown that the country will accept temporary extreme emergency measures.

    That will put all small businesses with premises out of business overnight. No takeaways, no pubs, no restaurants etc etc.
    No shops.
    A lot of shops are massively energy inefficient. Old florescent strip lights everywhere. Doors open a lot and heaters blasting hot money out the doorway. Food stores with open fridges blasting cold money into the air which then needs heating back up again.

    Savvy business owners have invested in energy-saving. Others are either focused on the core business or don't have free cashflow to invest into energy-saving, or can't borrow because business banking is on its knees.

    Remember - driving people towards "green crap" is what the incoming PM wants to stop.
    The farm shop in Yorkshire that was on our local news earlier this week that was closing had open refrigeration for its cheese and meat/deli counter as well as baking bread.

    They have just scaled back so they will just focused on shipping boxes of product for home delivery.
    Are they mad? Direct to Consumer food sales is a ship that has sunk. A fabulous way of losing money.
    Probably desperate and looking to offload stock they have and are committed to.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
  • nico679 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
    Category mistake Bart. Diplomacy is the game. Calling non hostile powers friends is one of the rules of the game.
    Why?

    Is Erdogan a friend? Is Victor Orban?
    France and the UK have a bi-lateral military alliance signed by Cameron and Sarkozy , France and the UK need to co-operate on a range of issues so Truss’s comments aren’t exactly helpful . You need to stop digging and accept that she could have been more diplomatic .
    We have an alliance with Turkey and Hungary and USA too.

    So is Orban a friend? Is Erdogan? Was Trump?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    Leon said:

    My upstaIrs flat which was a prison in lockdown might just be a boon this winter. All that free heat from the couple downstairs!

    lo, yes, me the same. Small one bed flat in a terrace snugly heated from above, below and the sides. With floor to ceiling south facing windows, capturing maximum solarity

    On a sunny winter day the flat warms itself

    My energy bills are about as low as you can get in the UK, if you own your own place. It is the revenge of the Lonely Lockdowners on all those chortling fat cats in their big airy houses with gardens, that will now cost roughly £5bn a week to heat
    Yes. Lock them down and confiscate their slankets.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Not really. The companies didn't budget to produce the gas at this vastly inflated price. They were expecting the price to be a fraction of this and will still make huge profits on what they produce here in the UK.

    This is imaginary money with real life consequences. No company expected to be making it and no one needs to find it at harm to themselves except the consumer. So the only people that will; be 'paying' it are the Oil Companies with reduced profits. Yes I understand all the stuff about share holders and pension funds but to be honest what is the point of having hugely valuable pension funds if you have killed of all your pensioners?
    It’s one way of reducing the deficit in funding many pensions funds still have !
  • Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Just also to add on your last point. In normal circumstances companies invest their money where they will get the best stable return in line with their AFEs (the planned costs of exploration, production and development). It is not the rates of tax that affect them so much when considering investment. It is the stability to allow long term planning given it can take up to a decade to get field into production.

    No one planned for these massive increases in gas prices. They never even dreamed of them. Setting a limit on the gas price for the duration of the crisis is not going to break those companies. Tie it to commitments for a stable tax a regulatory regime for the next decade and that will go a long way to dealing with the possible flight of investment.
    That all sounds positive. So if as you suggest Shell / BP et al will accept this, why aren't we discussing it with them? To listen to the likes of Truss you would believe the opposite was true.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    Taz said:
    So hes basically saying the same. 'Despite its leaders', 'jury out on Macron'
    Il est le tit pour le tat.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,009

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    A new Challenger enters the arena

    https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1563090691000938496

    Our first Westminster Voting Intention poll:

    LAB: 40%
    CON: 26%
    LDM: 11%
    GRN: 6%
    SNP: 6%

    Sample size: 1,235. Fieldwork: 22 Aug. Full tables: https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202208_GBN_W34_full.pdf


    Commissioned by GB News.

    I'm sure Leon will be commenting on the SNP figure to work out if peak SNP has passed.


    My comment is that this poll looks decidedly rogue, on multiple fronts

    I don’t doubt that Labour have a sizeable lead. But 14 points? Am Skeptical
    11% other others. The return of UKIP, lol
    Actually I quite like that, once you take the reform out, so many votes for fringe local independents all the time, perhaps everyone should show larger other figure?
    No, because the nutter parties never achieve that level of support (Reform wont get near 2% let alone 5 and they are by far the biggest) and there arent many strong 'independants' - Jason Zadrozny in Ashfield and Claire Swire in East Devon (but shes not certain to run again)
    But this is an opinion poll, saying rrform 5 today not prediction what they will get on polling day, I agree likely 3 or 2.

    I think you might be missing the non labour lefties get votes, non Lib Dem liberals get votes, non Reform UKip get votes etc.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Not really. The companies didn't budget to produce the gas at this vastly inflated price. They were expecting the price to be a fraction of this and will still make huge profits on what they produce here in the UK.

    This is imaginary money with real life consequences. No company expected to be making it and no one needs to find it at harm to themselves except the consumer. So the only people that will; be 'paying' it are the Oil Companies with reduced profits. Yes I understand all the stuff about share holders and pension funds but to be honest what is the point of having hugely valuable pension funds if you have killed of all your pensioners?
    As I asked upthread, though, how much of that production is already sold at earlier, lower prices ?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,045
    Leon said:

    Taz said:
    Perhaps Macron could have remembered this, that we are a supposed friend, before he tried to destroy confidence in a British Covid vaccine? Just because it was British?
    Just because he wanted to distract attention from the almighty cock-up the EU had made procuring vaccines.
This discussion has been closed.