Howdy, Stranger!

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

The first post leadership polling not good for Truss – politicalbetting.com

135678

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,061

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The asset rich are about 10% of the population, neither they or the top 10% of income earners are anywhere near enough to subsidise a 2 years energy cap. We will all have to pay for it longer term even if it eases a short term surge in energy bills and hope in due course we increase energy supplies in the UK and there is an end to the Russia Ukraine war which is the major cause of the problem
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,576
    ...
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    So another loan scheme, this time mortgaging our children.

    Is cynical to believe that 2 years is in scope because Labour offered 1 year. Are they really that petty? Surely not.
    It may look petty to you, from here. People who are no keener on freezing to death in 23-24 than they are in 22-23 will regard it as pretty substantial. The fact it makes SKS look a short sighted dick is a bonus.
    Bless. Someone’s having a bad day. Sympathies.
    Yes. I would be tetchy too if I realised I supported a party leader who has just been effortlessly outplayed by liz bloody truss on her first day in the office. Don't you think it looks a bit half-arsed to propose to solve a 22-24 problem with a plan which dies of ehaustion half way through 23?
    So the Tories intend to attack Labour for spending and borrowing too little at the next general election. Interesting.
    *Very* tetchy. I am not a tory and I haven't a clue, but why wouldn't they? People want the problem solved, not left unsolved because the solution would be too expensive, would be my guess. And a LOTO who doesn't realise that he can afford, within limits, to overpromise because he is not going to be called on to deliver...oh my.
    If only life was as simple as writing a blank cheque for every problem. Tories used to care about sound money, as Sunak pointed out this is no longer true. Kicking the can down the road and mortgaging the kids doesn’t actually solve the problem.
    Do you have a better solution? I can’t see one

    More government borrowing of some sort was always the only answer, if we want to stop the economy collapsing
    Not being in a de facto war with Europe's biggest gas supplier is the one answer, not when you've fucked yourself on energy security. If we were not dependent on Russian gas, go for it, be as hardline on Ukraine as you like. But we are. Speak softly and carry a big stick is the aphorism. We're shouting and carrying no stick.
  • It looks like we may finally get the real argument this country needs - whether to be a US or European style country.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588
    HYUFD said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The asset rich are about 10% of the population, neither they or the top 10% of income earners are anywhere near enough to subsidise a 2 years energy cap. We will all have to pay for it longer term even if it eases a short term surge in energy bills and hope in due course we increase energy supplies in the UK and there is an end to the Russia Ukraine war which is the major cause of the problem
    Quite


  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    When I was in South Korea the feeling was that neither China nor Japan would allow reunification for that very reason. Though getting the North up to speed would make the reunification of West and East Germany look like a cakewalk.

    The lingering hatred Korea has for Japan is one of the untold stories of geopolitics. Indeed same goes for China v Japan

    Japan made a lot of eternal enemies in the 20th century. East Asian politics makes Western Europe look incredibly amiable, despite the history. Which, to be fair, is partly down to the EU
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 880
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    So another loan scheme, this time mortgaging our children.

    Is cynical to believe that 2 years is in scope because Labour offered 1 year. Are they really that petty? Surely not.
    It may look petty to you, from here. People who are no keener on freezing to death in 23-24 than they are in 22-23 will regard it as pretty substantial. The fact it makes SKS look a short sighted dick is a bonus.
    Bless. Someone’s having a bad day. Sympathies.
    Yes. I would be tetchy too if I realised I supported a party leader who has just been effortlessly outplayed by liz bloody truss on her first day in the office. Don't you think it looks a bit half-arsed to propose to solve a 22-24 problem with a plan which dies of ehaustion half way through 23?
    So the Tories intend to attack Labour for spending and borrowing too little at the next general election. Interesting.
    *Very* tetchy. I am not a tory and I haven't a clue, but why wouldn't they? People want the problem solved, not left unsolved because the solution would be too expensive, would be my guess. And a LOTO who doesn't realise that he can afford, within limits, to overpromise because he is not going to be called on to deliver...oh my.
    If only life was as simple as writing a blank cheque for every problem. Tories used to care about sound money, as Sunak pointed out this is no longer true. Kicking the can down the road and mortgaging the kids doesn’t actually solve the problem.
    Do you have a better solution? I can’t see one

    More government borrowing of some sort was always the only answer, if we want to stop the economy collapsing
    Though politicly unconscionable, I suspect rationing was the best option. Reducing overall demand and then offering subsidised gas to those who need it.

    Would completely fuck the governing party though.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,010
    HYUFD said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The asset rich are about 10% of the population, neither they or the top 10% of income earners are anywhere near enough to subsidise a 2 years energy cap. We will all have to pay for it longer term even if it eases a short term surge in energy bills and hope in due course we increase energy supplies in the UK and there is an end to the Russia Ukraine war which is the major cause of the problem
    Maybe we should put IHT up to pay for it 👍
  • BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    But that generally means the client Tory vote, so there’s no chance.

  • BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    I would genuinely ask labour supporters, indeed any supporters of a windfall tax, how much revenue would it raise without affecting future north sea investment

    I would also ask if labour want to implement a wealth tax (it is an option) would someone explain to me how it would be implemented and how much would it raise before the wealthy fled the UK

    The problem is a bill in excess of £100 billion is not going to be met with these taxes and therefore the government borrowing this on a 20 year repayment basis is frankly the only proposition that could just work
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    But that generally means the client Tory vote, so there’s no chance.

    Labour would not have done it either, let’s be honest
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    ...

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    So another loan scheme, this time mortgaging our children.

    Is cynical to believe that 2 years is in scope because Labour offered 1 year. Are they really that petty? Surely not.
    It may look petty to you, from here. People who are no keener on freezing to death in 23-24 than they are in 22-23 will regard it as pretty substantial. The fact it makes SKS look a short sighted dick is a bonus.
    Bless. Someone’s having a bad day. Sympathies.
    Yes. I would be tetchy too if I realised I supported a party leader who has just been effortlessly outplayed by liz bloody truss on her first day in the office. Don't you think it looks a bit half-arsed to propose to solve a 22-24 problem with a plan which dies of ehaustion half way through 23?
    So the Tories intend to attack Labour for spending and borrowing too little at the next general election. Interesting.
    *Very* tetchy. I am not a tory and I haven't a clue, but why wouldn't they? People want the problem solved, not left unsolved because the solution would be too expensive, would be my guess. And a LOTO who doesn't realise that he can afford, within limits, to overpromise because he is not going to be called on to deliver...oh my.
    If only life was as simple as writing a blank cheque for every problem. Tories used to care about sound money, as Sunak pointed out this is no longer true. Kicking the can down the road and mortgaging the kids doesn’t actually solve the problem.
    Do you have a better solution? I can’t see one

    More government borrowing of some sort was always the only answer, if we want to stop the economy collapsing
    Not being in a de facto war with Europe's biggest gas supplier is the one answer, not when you've fucked yourself on energy security. If we were not dependent on Russian gas, go for it, be as hardline on Ukraine as you like. But we are. Speak softly and carry a big stick is the aphorism. We're shouting and carrying no stick.
    We import virtually no Russian gas (4%?), it's the knock on effect on world gas prices which hurts us. There isn't a Nordstream UK which Putin will turn back on just for us if we stop propping up Ukraine.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,627

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You can’t see it now, but one day you will be old, and may understand. Yes the boomers had a great deal. But it wasnt all great. My parents went six months without once going to the pub for a drink. Not once. They scrimped and saved and now have a great lifestyle. Fair play to them. In many ways they were lucky, but not all.
    I get that life seems tough to you. It was pretty tough in 1916 and 1943 too. We are at war, just a different kind of war. There are no bombs falling on Slough, or Jarrow, or the East End, but none the less we are at war. And war costs money to fight.
    How would you free up all the assets of the old and rich? I assume you refer to their houses? Who will buy and where will they go to live?
    I agree that the NI rise without also going after unearned income was a mistake, but I’m not sure what you would do in the current situation.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380

    So, the Truss government will be borrowing tens of billions of pounds to subsidise energy companies and to give the highest paid hundreds of pounds more in their pay packets.

    Good dividing lines. A genuine battle of ideas. Labour should welcome this.

    Not convinced it’s an easy sell

    “Tories froze the energy bills of the richest”

    Voter hears “Tories froze energy bills”
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    I would genuinely ask labour supporters, indeed any supporters of a windfall tax, how much revenue would it raise without affecting future north sea investment

    I would also ask if labour want to implement a wealth tax (it is an option) would someone explain to me how it would be implemented and how much would it raise before the wealthy fled the UK

    The problem is a bill in excess of £100 billion is not going to be met with these taxes and therefore the government borrowing this on a 20 year repayment basis is frankly the only proposition that could just work
    Yes, it’s always easier to put it on the laterbase.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 880
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
  • FFS

    Exclusive: Sources tell @jessicaelgot and I that Tory MP Christopher Chope is being nominated to join the privileges committee and probe into Partygate.

    Motion expected overnight will be one of the last acts of Boris Johnson administration.

    Needs approval of the Commons.


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1566851082340507648
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,419
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    That's a lot of empty cities.
    Still a lot of people though.

    By 2100 the population of Africa will surpass that of Asia, and with global warming will mean massive migration to more temperate climes.
    And what would you do about it?
    The bigger question is why does anyone believe western nations will accept that migration. I fully expect fortress europe with armed sentries willing to shoot to keep them out. Predictions on climate migration even at the lower end would result in most countries almost doubling their populations from immigration. No demos is going to stand for that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,061
    edited September 5

    HYUFD said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The asset rich are about 10% of the population, neither they or the top 10% of income earners are anywhere near enough to subsidise a 2 years energy cap. We will all have to pay for it longer term even if it eases a short term surge in energy bills and hope in due course we increase energy supplies in the UK and there is an end to the Russia Ukraine war which is the major cause of the problem
    Maybe we should put IHT up to pay for it 👍
    Electoral suicide, the IHT cut of Osborne the most popular Tory policy of the 21st century, May's dementia tax the least.

    In any case it would not raise enough as even under the old IHT threshold most estates did not pay it
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380
    Omnium said:

    Well if Liz freezes bills that’s a good start. Credit where it is due

    It's a very bad idea to try to control prices. Bills, and help with bills may be a different thing.
    That’s effectively what it is though
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588

    So, the Truss government will be borrowing tens of billions of pounds to subsidise energy companies and to give the highest paid hundreds of pounds more in their pay packets.

    Good dividing lines. A genuine battle of ideas. Labour should welcome this.

    Not convinced it’s an easy sell

    “Tories froze the energy bills of the richest”

    Voter hears “Tories froze energy bills”
    Even if energy bills are frozen at current rates its going to be shit so I doubt there is going to be much gratitude.

    And then the cost of living gets even worse for the under 40s for the next 20 years.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
    Odd comment. South Korea is a remarkable and admirable country. They were as poor as sub Saharan Africans after WW2

    Now they conquer world culture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/04/korea-culture-k-pop-music-film-tv-hallyu-v-and-a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The young deserve everything they bloody get, including the opportunity to subsidise my already very comfortable lifestyle, because they are plainly too stupid to answer the question: In a democracy, what should you do to ensure that things are arranged more to your satisfaction?

    4 letters, begins with v.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Now that Priti Patel is resigning as Home Secretary, she'll have more free time to spend on her hobbies, like secret meetings with overseas government officials.

    https://twitter.com/LewieP/status/1566852424857419776?t=b03nPaDuWe7z18zfaTtUtQ&s=19
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,471

    Omnium said:

    Well if Liz freezes bills that’s a good start. Credit where it is due

    It's a very bad idea to try to control prices. Bills, and help with bills may be a different thing.
    That’s effectively what it is though
    Well if it's controlling prices, then don't do it!
  • BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    I would genuinely ask labour supporters, indeed any supporters of a windfall tax, how much revenue would it raise without affecting future north sea investment

    I would also ask if labour want to implement a wealth tax (it is an option) would someone explain to me how it would be implemented and how much would it raise before the wealthy fled the UK

    The problem is a bill in excess of £100 billion is not going to be met with these taxes and therefore the government borrowing this on a 20 year repayment basis is frankly the only proposition that could just work
    Yes, it’s always easier to put it on the laterbase.
    To be fair do you have an answer to my two questions ?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588
    IshmaelZ said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The young deserve everything they bloody get, including the opportunity to subsidise my already very comfortable lifestyle, because they are plainly too stupid to answer the question: In a democracy, what should you do to ensure that things are arranged more to your satisfaction?

    4 letters, begins with v.
    Right.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,576
    edited September 5
    IshmaelZ said:

    ...

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    So another loan scheme, this time mortgaging our children.

    Is cynical to believe that 2 years is in scope because Labour offered 1 year. Are they really that petty? Surely not.
    It may look petty to you, from here. People who are no keener on freezing to death in 23-24 than they are in 22-23 will regard it as pretty substantial. The fact it makes SKS look a short sighted dick is a bonus.
    Bless. Someone’s having a bad day. Sympathies.
    Yes. I would be tetchy too if I realised I supported a party leader who has just been effortlessly outplayed by liz bloody truss on her first day in the office. Don't you think it looks a bit half-arsed to propose to solve a 22-24 problem with a plan which dies of ehaustion half way through 23?
    So the Tories intend to attack Labour for spending and borrowing too little at the next general election. Interesting.
    *Very* tetchy. I am not a tory and I haven't a clue, but why wouldn't they? People want the problem solved, not left unsolved because the solution would be too expensive, would be my guess. And a LOTO who doesn't realise that he can afford, within limits, to overpromise because he is not going to be called on to deliver...oh my.
    If only life was as simple as writing a blank cheque for every problem. Tories used to care about sound money, as Sunak pointed out this is no longer true. Kicking the can down the road and mortgaging the kids doesn’t actually solve the problem.
    Do you have a better solution? I can’t see one

    More government borrowing of some sort was always the only answer, if we want to stop the economy collapsing
    Not being in a de facto war with Europe's biggest gas supplier is the one answer, not when you've fucked yourself on energy security. If we were not dependent on Russian gas, go for it, be as hardline on Ukraine as you like. But we are. Speak softly and carry a big stick is the aphorism. We're shouting and carrying no stick.
    We import virtually no Russian gas (4%?), it's the knock on effect on world gas prices which hurts us. There isn't a Nordstream UK which Putin will turn back on just for us if we stop propping up Ukraine.
    RCS1000 says Russia has plenty of LNG facilities to get us the gas, but yes, I agree it is an EU rapprochement with Russia that would be required to sort the issue in the medium term. And I am not unrealistic, I realise that it's impossible politically and diplomatically to leap back into bed with Uncle Vlad on a unilateral basis.
  • I vote and I am getting shafted
  • FFS

    Exclusive: Sources tell @jessicaelgot and I that Tory MP Christopher Chope is being nominated to join the privileges committee and probe into Partygate.

    Motion expected overnight will be one of the last acts of Boris Johnson administration.

    Needs approval of the Commons.


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1566851082340507648

    I give up
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    I would genuinely ask labour supporters, indeed any supporters of a windfall tax, how much revenue would it raise without affecting future north sea investment

    I would also ask if labour want to implement a wealth tax (it is an option) would someone explain to me how it would be implemented and how much would it raise before the wealthy fled the UK

    The problem is a bill in excess of £100 billion is not going to be met with these taxes and therefore the government borrowing this on a 20 year repayment basis is frankly the only proposition that could just work
    Yes, it’s always easier to put it on the laterbase.
    To be fair do you have an answer to my two questions ?
    I haven’t expressed an opinion on Labour’s policy so I’m not sure why that’s relevant.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,627

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    I thought you said you were comfortable, had savings and investments yesterday?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Your age cohort does not, or not enough.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799
    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    That's a lot of empty cities.
    Still a lot of people though.

    By 2100 the population of Africa will surpass that of Asia, and with global warming will mean massive migration to more temperate climes.
    And what would you do about it?
    The bigger question is why does anyone believe western nations will accept that migration. I fully expect fortress europe with armed sentries willing to shoot to keep them out. Predictions on climate migration even at the lower end would result in most countries almost doubling their populations from immigration. No demos is going to stand for that.

    Yes, of course that is the end place, if it continues (and likely will, and will probably worsen)

    Civilised countries like Greece are already pushing the boats back and letting people drown, civilised countries like Italy and France are sending them to Libya where they are literally slaved

    Hideous. But what is the alternative? If you abandon border control the electorate will vote in a Nazi party to sort it out
  • BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    I would genuinely ask labour supporters, indeed any supporters of a windfall tax, how much revenue would it raise without affecting future north sea investment

    I would also ask if labour want to implement a wealth tax (it is an option) would someone explain to me how it would be implemented and how much would it raise before the wealthy fled the UK

    The problem is a bill in excess of £100 billion is not going to be met with these taxes and therefore the government borrowing this on a 20 year repayment basis is frankly the only proposition that could just work
    Yes, it’s always easier to put it on the laterbase.
    To be fair do you have an answer to my two questions ?
    I haven’t expressed an opinion on Labour’s policy so I’m not sure why that’s relevant.
    The question is at the heart of this debate to be fair
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380
    eek said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    Not if they live at home.....
    The youngest millennials were born in 1996 so are currently 27

    30% of male 27 years and 13% of females (interesting difference) live with their parents

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/285330/young-adults-living-with-parents-uk-by-age-and-gender/

    And they will still benefit indirectly through higher warmth and higher inheritances

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The young deserve everything they bloody get, including the opportunity to subsidise my already very comfortable lifestyle, because they are plainly too stupid to answer the question: In a democracy, what should you do to ensure that things are arranged more to your satisfaction?

    4 letters, begins with v.
    Right.
    Yes, right a letter to your MP is one option. But before that...
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    When I was in South Korea the feeling was that neither China nor Japan would allow reunification for that very reason. Though getting the North up to speed would make the reunification of West and East Germany look like a cakewalk.

    The lingering hatred Korea has for Japan is one of the untold stories of geopolitics. Indeed same goes for China v Japan

    Japan made a lot of eternal enemies in the 20th century. East Asian politics makes Western Europe look incredibly amiable, despite the history. Which, to be fair, is partly down to the EU
    The Koreans absolutely detest the Japanese and do not hide it. The Taiwanese, by contrast, seem to be quite fond of them.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588

    eek said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    Not if they live at home.....
    The youngest millennials were born in 1996 so are currently 27

    30% of male 27 years and 13% of females (interesting difference) live with their parents

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/285330/young-adults-living-with-parents-uk-by-age-and-gender/

    And they will still benefit indirectly through higher warmth and higher inheritances

    There will be nothing left to inherit when this country is left to us.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380

    So, the Truss government will be borrowing tens of billions of pounds to subsidise energy companies and to give the highest paid hundreds of pounds more in their pay packets.

    Good dividing lines. A genuine battle of ideas. Labour should welcome this.

    Not convinced it’s an easy sell

    “Tories froze the energy bills of the richest”

    Voter hears “Tories froze energy bills”
    Even if energy bills are frozen at current rates its going to be shit so I doubt there is going to be much gratitude.

    And then the cost of living gets even worse for the under 40s for the next 20 years.

    Sure - but it’s not the massive winner SO thought

  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 880
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
    Odd comment. South Korea is a remarkable and admirable country. They were as poor as sub Saharan Africans after WW2

    Now they conquer world culture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/04/korea-culture-k-pop-music-film-tv-hallyu-v-and-a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    Yes, maybe a little unfair.

    A view borne from my character traits. The S-Korean society is of course highly productive but IMO its also deeply flawed.


  • IshmaelZ said:

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Your age cohort does not, or not enough.
    I agree.

    But I do and I am getting shafted.

    Pay for the elderly twats. Fuck them
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380
    IshmaelZ said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    The young deserve everything they bloody get, including the opportunity to subsidise my already very comfortable lifestyle, because they are plainly too stupid to answer the question: In a democracy, what should you do to ensure that things are arranged more to your satisfaction?

    4 letters, begins with v.
    Vape? Very popular among da youf I’m told

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    When I was in South Korea the feeling was that neither China nor Japan would allow reunification for that very reason. Though getting the North up to speed would make the reunification of West and East Germany look like a cakewalk.

    The lingering hatred Korea has for Japan is one of the untold stories of geopolitics. Indeed same goes for China v Japan

    Japan made a lot of eternal enemies in the 20th century. East Asian politics makes Western Europe look incredibly amiable, despite the history. Which, to be fair, is partly down to the EU
    The Koreans absolutely detest the Japanese and do not hide it. The Taiwanese, by contrast, seem to be quite fond of them.

    Yes, i got the same vibe in Seoul. And when you read the history you learn why. The comfort women! Jesus

    Right up there with Nazi Germany

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

    I never quite got a handle on Korean attitudes to China. Unlike Vietnam, where they definitely hate the Chinese, not the Japanese

    Such a hot geopolitical mess
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,183

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    When I was in South Korea the feeling was that neither China nor Japan would allow reunification for that very reason. Though getting the North up to speed would make the reunification of West and East Germany look like a cakewalk.

    It would need something well out of the ordinary to precipitate it, but it’s not impossible.
    And the north is significantly better endowed with natural resources.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Well if Liz freezes bills that’s a good start. Credit where it is due

    It's a very bad idea to try to control prices. Bills, and help with bills may be a different thing.
    That’s effectively what it is though
    Well if it's controlling prices, then don't do it!
    Not really - prices are free to move but consumers are only charged a fixed amount with the spread being paid (contractually agreed) by government:

    I assume - not seen the details
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Your age cohort does not, or not enough.
    Though given that some of the people who will be paying back this largesse haven't even been born yet, it's not entirely their fault.

    This was a poster from 2009. How times change.



    It's so easy to be generous with other people's money. Now this may be a grim necessity, but it's not something to chortle "shooting Labour s fox" about.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    Channeling my inner dark/socialist side, if Liz “no tax rises” Truss wasn’t so anti any tax rises would it be possible to introduce a tax, call it a “solidarity tax” on people earning over say 150k pa which would cover the benefit they get if there is a universal freeze?

    Would remove accusations that the “rich” who don’t need help are benefiting. Surely easier to add it as a flat tax on top of annual income tax than trying to sort who gets it in the first place?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,851
    Woke department, channelling Leon - an interesting piece about how the meaning of "Jerusalem" has changed back and forth over the years. The musical discussion is over my head, but I see the abiguity of the text.

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/sep/05/anti-empire-anti-fascist-pro-suffragette-last-night-of-the-proms-jerusalem-william-blake
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,992
    Mid evening all :)

    A trip up to Scotland for Liz Truss tomorrow and she will return "in triumph" to give us all a glimpse into many think will be a return to 1979.

    As I've said before, the Thatcherites had the not inconsiderable assistance of North Sea Oil, Privatisation receipts and a group of desperate idiots in Buenos Aires.

    I'd certainly argue Truss faces as daunting an in-tray as any incoming PM since Thatcher but one can also argue a lot of the problems are going to be hard for her to control directly. She can do nothing, for example, directly about the conflict in the Ukraine and she can do little about the fact of rising energy prices - both oil and gas rose in price today and it seems we may have to adjust to $90 a barrel oil as the "new normal".

    I remain a simpleton at heart compared to what I'm informed are the towering intellects on this forum - if the plan is to freeze energy bills for the consumers, fine, I get that but the fact remains the gas and electricity is being supplied at higher prices so someone is going to have to pay the balance - the Government presumably?

    I also remain bemused at how, given an annual debt interest of £100 billion and the other myriad calls on the public purse such as defence, health, pensions and the Police (all of which, we are told by Conservatives, are vital), there is any scope for more than a gesture in terms of reducing taxes and even then is that shortfall in revenue to be met by public expenditure reductions and if so, what, where and when?

    The more thoughtful local authorities, who are curious beasts by nature, are already war gaming 10-15% net reductions in Government financial support and the impact on Service provision. Some are already trying to sell off their mostly unused office space (I see central Government is trying to sell off £1.5 billion of office estate so JRM's plan to get the civil servants back to their desks, like all his other stupid ideas, is all image and no substance).

    It would be churlish not to wish Truss and the new Government well - I disagree with her at a fundamental philosophical level and I hope she and her Ministers adopt a less ideological and more pragmatic aspect in terms of practical governing (the successful PMs know when to be ideologues and when to be sensible in Government).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
    Odd comment. South Korea is a remarkable and admirable country. They were as poor as sub Saharan Africans after WW2

    Now they conquer world culture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/04/korea-culture-k-pop-music-film-tv-hallyu-v-and-a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    Yes, maybe a little unfair.

    A view borne from my character traits. The S-Korean society is of course highly productive but IMO its also deeply flawed.


    Borderline racist, arguably, but whatevs, I’m in a benign mood

    South Korean society definitely has its flaws, see their demographic crisis. But then this is happening in Italy and Eastern Europe just as badly

    Also, South Korea is honest about its societal flaws and examines them in front of the world: eg Squid Game

    That’s a healthy sign. It’s a clever, functioning, self aware and peaceful democracy, that makes great Netflix dramas. It’s not Russia
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588
    edited September 5

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,289
    You need to go back to what happened in Korea during the Japanese occupation in the early 1940s to understand why the country is so loathed. One of the drivers of the South Korean Economic Miracle has been the desire to get one up on the Japan. In my working days I had an office in Seoul
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,183
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
    Odd comment. South Korea is a remarkable and admirable country. They were as poor as sub Saharan Africans after WW2

    Now they conquer world culture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/04/korea-culture-k-pop-music-film-tv-hallyu-v-and-a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    좋아요.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,417

    IshmaelZ said:

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Your age cohort does not, or not enough.
    Though given that some of the people who will be paying back this largesse haven't even been born yet, it's not entirely their fault.

    This was a poster from 2009. How times change.



    It's so easy to be generous with other people's money. Now this may be a grim necessity, but it's not something to chortle "shooting Labour s fox" about.
    What an unpleasant poster. I must have missed it at the time.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380

    eek said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    Not if they live at home.....
    The youngest millennials were born in 1996 so are currently 27

    30% of male 27 years and 13% of females (interesting difference) live with their parents

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/285330/young-adults-living-with-parents-uk-by-age-and-gender/

    And they will still benefit indirectly through higher warmth and higher inheritances

    There will be nothing left to inherit when this country is left to us.
    You will still inherit a little bit more as a result of this policy
  • stodge said:

    Mid evening all :)

    A trip up to Scotland for Liz Truss tomorrow and she will return "in triumph" to give us all a glimpse into many think will be a return to 1979.

    As I've said before, the Thatcherites had the not inconsiderable assistance of North Sea Oil, Privatisation receipts and a group of desperate idiots in Buenos Aires.

    I'd certainly argue Truss faces as daunting an in-tray as any incoming PM since Thatcher but one can also argue a lot of the problems are going to be hard for her to control directly. She can do nothing, for example, directly about the conflict in the Ukraine and she can do little about the fact of rising energy prices - both oil and gas rose in price today and it seems we may have to adjust to $90 a barrel oil as the "new normal".

    I remain a simpleton at heart compared to what I'm informed are the towering intellects on this forum - if the plan is to freeze energy bills for the consumers, fine, I get that but the fact remains the gas and electricity is being supplied at higher prices so someone is going to have to pay the balance - the Government presumably?

    I also remain bemused at how, given an annual debt interest of £100 billion and the other myriad calls on the public purse such as defence, health, pensions and the Police (all of which, we are told by Conservatives, are vital), there is any scope for more than a gesture in terms of reducing taxes and even then is that shortfall in revenue to be met by public expenditure reductions and if so, what, where and when?

    The more thoughtful local authorities, who are curious beasts by nature, are already war gaming 10-15% net reductions in Government financial support and the impact on Service provision. Some are already trying to sell off their mostly unused office space (I see central Government is trying to sell off £1.5 billion of office estate so JRM's plan to get the civil servants back to their desks, like all his other stupid ideas, is all image and no substance).

    It would be churlish not to wish Truss and the new Government well - I disagree with her at a fundamental philosophical level and I hope she and her Ministers adopt a less ideological and more pragmatic aspect in terms of practical governing (the successful PMs know when to be ideologues and when to be sensible in Government).

    Good post and of course the NI reverse was largely mitigated when Sunak excluded those earning £34,000 or less

    Th CBI said today that they pay 19% corporation tax already, but that in April an uplift to 25% was unwelcome i this climate
  • It looks like we may finally get the real argument this country needs - whether to be a US or European style country.

    To which of course the correct answer is: No.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,417
    Despite Barr's riduculing it, it looks like Trump got a legal win, at least insofar as slowing things down.

    A judge has granted Donald Trump's demand for a "special master" to oversee the case into his handling of classified materials.

    Mr Trump is being investigated for allegedly taking documents with him when he left the White House.

    But the "special master" is an independent lawyer who decides if any of the records are covered by attorney-client or executive privilege.

    The move is seen as a blow to prosecutors and a win for Mr Trump.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62799425
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799

    You need to go back to what happened in Korea during the Japanese occupation in the early 1940s to understand why the country is so loathed. One of the drivers of the South Korean Economic Miracle has been the desire to get one up on the Japan. In my working days I had an office in Seoul

    One of my stray random vivid travel memories is being in Seoul in about 1995 as lunch hour struck, Suddenly millions of happy young Korean office workers poured into the streets to eat bibimbap, laughing, chatty, friendly, excitable. A surge of brilliant energy. The Koreans are perhaps more exuberant than the relatively introverted Japanese, which added to the vibe

    The sense of a country on the rise and going places was palpable. And so it has proved
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,380
    edited September 5

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    Because you implement the popular bit of the policy now and by the time the bill arrives it’s too late.

    Your way you get caught up arguing about who should pay and how and nothing gets done
  • BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,417

    eek said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    Not if they live at home.....
    The youngest millennials were born in 1996 so are currently 27

    30% of male 27 years and 13% of females (interesting difference) live with their parents

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/285330/young-adults-living-with-parents-uk-by-age-and-gender/

    And they will still benefit indirectly through higher warmth and higher inheritances

    There will be nothing left to inherit when this country is left to us.
    I've known for a long time I was not going to have anything to inherit ever. I'd say it was oddly liberating, but I've not really lived life to the full in response.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Your age cohort does not, or not enough.
    I agree.

    But I do and I am getting shafted.

    Pay for the elderly twats. Fuck them
    Yesterday you were complaining that Truss was going to give you a tax cut that you "don't need". A tax cut that won't be going to the elderly.

    Is it just reflexively whatever Truss/Tories do that gets you angry? Or is there any consistency I've missed?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,925
    edited September 5
    When Starmer proposed an energy bill cap a few weeks ago, I thought Conservatives would inevitably follow where Starmer led, despite their earlier criticisms. Including not being means tested. I also expected them to pretend their plan was radically different. This all looks to be the case.

    The Truss plan as leaked likely has a couple of further defects compared with the Starmer one. Paying through future bills is regressive compared with doing it through taxation. The poor will pay relatively more than the rich in the years to come. It's also more costly to borrow that way. This is par for the course. Wasteful and unfair is the Conservative way of doing things these days - Starmer should really be hammering that message.

    Nevertheless capping energy prices is a necessary thing to do - which is why they are doing it of course.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,440
    edited September 5

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    The other side of @SouthamObserver 's ideological coin, of course, is that opponents of Trussism will have to invoke the politics of envy.

    There are more people with something invested in the country, who fear asset taxes, than those without.

    I suspect Starmer will see the bloody big bear trap. Tell everyone to avoid it. And still the rump of the loony-tunes Corbynite MPs and the Trade Unions will rush right into it....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799
    Speaking of countries, i am happy to report that Portugal hasn’t changed

    It is still weirdly cheap and sublimely peaceful in the countryside. Villages go into a coma in the afternoon. Look carefully and everyone gazes pensively to the west, from time to time, as they must have done for 1000 years. Contemplating the crucial but lethal Atlantic coast

    And they are now knocking out excellent wines to go with the still-excellent custard tarts

    It’s not a place to come for excitement, but for a sense of Ahhhhhh: very much yes
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,627
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    Not if they live at home.....
    The youngest millennials were born in 1996 so are currently 27

    30% of male 27 years and 13% of females (interesting difference) live with their parents

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/285330/young-adults-living-with-parents-uk-by-age-and-gender/

    And they will still benefit indirectly through higher warmth and higher inheritances

    There will be nothing left to inherit when this country is left to us.
    I've known for a long time I was not going to have anything to inherit ever. I'd say it was oddly liberating, but I've not really lived life to the full in response.
    If, and that’s a big if, my folks and m-in-l don’t require significant care into old age, we stand to inherit a fair amount (half shares of two estates). Probably don’t really need it, but nice if we get it. Hope it’s not for many, many more years.
  • stodge said:

    Mid evening all :)

    A trip up to Scotland for Liz Truss tomorrow and she will return "in triumph" to give us all a glimpse into many think will be a return to 1979.

    As I've said before, the Thatcherites had the not inconsiderable assistance of North Sea Oil, Privatisation receipts and a group of desperate idiots in Buenos Aires.

    I'd certainly argue Truss faces as daunting an in-tray as any incoming PM since Thatcher but one can also argue a lot of the problems are going to be hard for her to control directly. She can do nothing, for example, directly about the conflict in the Ukraine and she can do little about the fact of rising energy prices - both oil and gas rose in price today and it seems we may have to adjust to $90 a barrel oil as the "new normal".

    I remain a simpleton at heart compared to what I'm informed are the towering intellects on this forum - if the plan is to freeze energy bills for the consumers, fine, I get that but the fact remains the gas and electricity is being supplied at higher prices so someone is going to have to pay the balance - the Government presumably?

    I also remain bemused at how, given an annual debt interest of £100 billion and the other myriad calls on the public purse such as defence, health, pensions and the Police (all of which, we are told by Conservatives, are vital), there is any scope for more than a gesture in terms of reducing taxes and even then is that shortfall in revenue to be met by public expenditure reductions and if so, what, where and when?

    The more thoughtful local authorities, who are curious beasts by nature, are already war gaming 10-15% net reductions in Government financial support and the impact on Service provision. Some are already trying to sell off their mostly unused office space (I see central Government is trying to sell off £1.5 billion of office estate so JRM's plan to get the civil servants back to their desks, like all his other stupid ideas, is all image and no substance).

    It would be churlish not to wish Truss and the new Government well - I disagree with her at a fundamental philosophical level and I hope she and her Ministers adopt a less ideological and more pragmatic aspect in terms of practical governing (the successful PMs know when to be ideologues and when to be sensible in Government).

    Good post and of course the NI reverse was largely mitigated when Sunak excluded those earning £34,000 or less

    Th CBI said today that they pay 19% corporation tax already, but that in April an uplift to 25% was unwelcome i this climate
    Sunak never excluded those earning £34k or less. He excluded those earning about £12k or less.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
    Odd comment. South Korea is a remarkable and admirable country. They were as poor as sub Saharan Africans after WW2

    Now they conquer world culture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/04/korea-culture-k-pop-music-film-tv-hallyu-v-and-a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    Yes, maybe a little unfair.

    A view borne from my character traits. The S-Korean society is of course highly productive but IMO its also deeply flawed.


    Borderline racist, arguably, but whatevs, I’m in a benign mood

    South Korean society definitely has its flaws, see their demographic crisis. But then this is happening in Italy and Eastern Europe just as badly

    Also, South Korea is honest about its societal flaws and examines them in front of the world: eg Squid Game

    That’s a healthy sign. It’s a clever, functioning, self aware and peaceful democracy, that makes great Netflix dramas. It’s not Russia
    Here's some data on it: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6NWX

    The UK isn't even that bad by 2050.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,440

    So, the Truss government will be borrowing tens of billions of pounds to subsidise energy companies and to give the highest paid hundreds of pounds more in their pay packets.

    Good dividing lines. A genuine battle of ideas. Labour should welcome this.

    Not convinced it’s an easy sell

    “Tories froze the energy bills of the richest”

    Voter hears “Tories froze energy bills”
    Quite.

    Its the 350m thing all over again.

    Labour won't be able to help themselves rant and rave about the tax cuts the middle classes are going to receive.

    The dividing line will be between a big and a small state, but also between lower and higher taxes.

    The left won't see it, and are doomed to make the same mistakes all over again....
  • FF43 said:

    When Starmer proposed an energy bill cap a few weeks ago, I thought Conservatives would inevitably follow where Starmer led, despite their earlier criticisms. Including not being means tested. I also expected them to pretend their plan was radically different. This all looks to be the case.

    The Truss plan as leaked likely has a couple of further defects compared with the Starmer one. Paying through future bills is regressive compared with doing it through taxation. The poor will pay relatively more than the rich in the years to come. It's also more costly to borrow that way. This is par for the course. Wasteful and unfair is the Conservative way of doing things these days - Starmer should really be hammering that message.

    Nevertheless capping energy prices is a necessary thing to do - which is why they are doing it of course.

    Same question arises

    If you are to raise taxes you need to answer this question

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion and what further taxes would be needed

    Germany seems to think it is a solution as does Sturgeon if I heard her correctly
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,322

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It's started.


    I expect that it will be a modest turnout. I am working this weekend, otherwise might have made the effort.
    Shame. The rage filled afternoon of some folk arguing over the numbers attending that big pro EU march in London was one of the highlights of Brexit.
    I didn't make the first surprisingly large march, but glad I made the two later marches. A great atmosphere and a real pleasure.
    And an utterly tragic waste of time, which paradoxically ensured we got a Hard Hard Brexit, as Remoanery people like you tried to cancel a democratic vote, sending Leavers understandably insane

    Well done. Really. Well done
    We got a hard Brexit because of Theresa May's red lines and Boris Johnson's opportunism. No other principal reason.
    Ah, Leon's got half a point on this one. There were people willing to compromise, and could have overruled May's red lines, we saw parliament nearly do so, but there was a gang of extremists to match the ERG who decided to bet everything on winning it all. It was not coincidence that saw them walking through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg and Baker.

    That's not blame, its explanation.
    When the history of the period is written with proper hindsight, Brexit, and the type of Brexit we got, will be shown to have had many parents. Absolutely some hardline remainers gambled everything on overturning the vote, and as a result ended up with the situation we have now. I think an awful lot of leavers didn’t want to leave the single market, just the political machinery of the EU.
    We are where we are. Future governments can take a different direction.
    Theresa May's red line was leaving the single market. As soon as she became PM, just weeks after the referendum. Before a single Remoaner had Remoaned about anything. The deal we have now is very similar to the one Theresa May laid out, just with an extra layer of dishonesty about Northern Ireland. It's not Remainers' fault that May chucked away her majority then tried to force through a deal that nobody in their right mind could support, while whipping her MPs to vote down any compromise.
    What always suprises me, looking back on it, is that Parliament voted to invoke Article 50 498-114, when as you say, the red lines were known.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,171

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Wow. That option wasn't on my ballot.

    Who did you vote for?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,171
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Your age cohort does not, or not enough.
    Though given that some of the people who will be paying back this largesse haven't even been born yet, it's not entirely their fault.

    This was a poster from 2009. How times change.



    It's so easy to be generous with other people's money. Now this may be a grim necessity, but it's not something to chortle "shooting Labour s fox" about.
    What an unpleasant poster. I must have missed it at the time.
    Bit harsh.

    Stuart is alright.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,183
    .
    kle4 said:

    Despite Barr's riduculing it, it looks like Trump got a legal win, at least insofar as slowing things down.

    A judge has granted Donald Trump's demand for a "special master" to oversee the case into his handling of classified materials.

    Mr Trump is being investigated for allegedly taking documents with him when he left the White House.

    But the "special master" is an independent lawyer who decides if any of the records are covered by attorney-client or executive privilege.

    The move is seen as a blow to prosecutors and a win for Mr Trump.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62799425

    Barr was right to ridicule it, IMO.
    Trump appointee ruling on Trump motion isn’t the greatest of looks.

    There is no way any other citizen in illicit possession of classified materials would have been granted the same consideration.

    But it ought not to change the eventual outcome, merely delay it.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,440

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
    Probably 95% are voters.

    Probably less than 5% could easily afford that. Maybe less than 2%.

    Your policy is a guaranteed election loser.

    Back to the day job methinks.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,171

    Woke department, channelling Leon - an interesting piece about how the meaning of "Jerusalem" has changed back and forth over the years. The musical discussion is over my head, but I see the abiguity of the text.

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/sep/05/anti-empire-anti-fascist-pro-suffragette-last-night-of-the-proms-jerusalem-william-blake

    Ah, the annual culture war over Last Night of the Proms is just round the corner, isn't it?

    Joy.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588
    Mortimer said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
    Probably 95% are voters.

    Probably less than 5% could easily afford that. Maybe less than 2%.

    Your policy is a guaranteed election loser.

    Back to the day job methinks.
    It's not my policy. I was giving an example.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,440

    Mortimer said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
    Probably 95% are voters.

    Probably less than 5% could easily afford that. Maybe less than 2%.

    Your policy is a guaranteed election loser.

    Back to the day job methinks.
    It's not my policy. I was giving an example.
    'Random terrible policy generator'?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,851



    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion

    It depends on the details, not least the rate and the duration. A reasonable middle course between the Starmer plan and what we think the Truss plan will be would be to pay the cost of the cap over 20 years, but recover it through a wealth tax and/or an extra band of income tax. Just putting it into debt is the sort of thing that Conservatives always claim Labour will do...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,417
    Nigelb said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Despite Barr's riduculing it, it looks like Trump got a legal win, at least insofar as slowing things down.

    A judge has granted Donald Trump's demand for a "special master" to oversee the case into his handling of classified materials.

    Mr Trump is being investigated for allegedly taking documents with him when he left the White House.

    But the "special master" is an independent lawyer who decides if any of the records are covered by attorney-client or executive privilege.

    The move is seen as a blow to prosecutors and a win for Mr Trump.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62799425

    Barr was right to ridicule it, IMO.
    Trump appointee ruling on Trump motion isn’t the greatest of looks.

    Well, unavoidable when so many judges are appointed.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 880
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
    Odd comment. South Korea is a remarkable and admirable country. They were as poor as sub Saharan Africans after WW2

    Now they conquer world culture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/04/korea-culture-k-pop-music-film-tv-hallyu-v-and-a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    Yes, maybe a little unfair.

    A view borne from my character traits. The S-Korean society is of course highly productive but IMO its also deeply flawed.


    Borderline racist, arguably, but whatevs, I’m in a benign mood

    South Korean society definitely has its flaws, see their demographic crisis. But then this is happening in Italy and Eastern Europe just as badly

    Also, South Korea is honest about its societal flaws and examines them in front of the world: eg Squid Game

    That’s a healthy sign. It’s a clever, functioning, self aware and peaceful democracy, that makes great Netflix dramas. It’s not Russia
    Racist I don't think so, more selfishness. I would not have done well in South Korea. My impression of the place was the pressure to conform and be part of the group. Plus the education system would have broken me.

    Maybe not the best reasons to wish the North on them. Just not the place for me.
  • Woke department, channelling Leon - an interesting piece about how the meaning of "Jerusalem" has changed back and forth over the years. The musical discussion is over my head, but I see the abiguity of the text.

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/sep/05/anti-empire-anti-fascist-pro-suffragette-last-night-of-the-proms-jerusalem-william-blake

    Ah, the annual culture war over Last Night of the Proms is just round the corner, isn't it?

    Joy.
    I feel for Leon when he realises Last Night of the Proms is straight out of the fascism playbook.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,024
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I vote and I am getting shafted

    Your age cohort does not, or not enough.
    Though given that some of the people who will be paying back this largesse haven't even been born yet, it's not entirely their fault.

    This was a poster from 2009. How times change.



    It's so easy to be generous with other people's money. Now this may be a grim necessity, but it's not something to chortle "shooting Labour s fox" about.
    What an unpleasant poster. I must have missed it at the time.
    I suspect targeted only at Tory voters and possible T. vs, or was that too early?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,417

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    For a sense of how mad it is to look more than 10 years into the future, this is some stat

    China’s population is expected to halve - HALVE - by 2100, and the sharp decline starts now

    And at least ten other countries - big ones like Korea and Italy - are in the same boat

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1566806384838152193?s=21&t=MRZkjO8ld5QUWt5i1WHZeQ

    Korea is not very big, and solving their population problem would likely be a matter of allowing more immigration.
    The wild card would be reunification with the bankrupt North.
    S Korea seems a terrible place to have/be a child. And not the place to be a low skilled migrant.
    @Nigelb makes a good point tho. North Korea needs the money of the south, South Korea needs the Koreans in the north. And both are a bit desperate. So reunification will probably happen

    A reunited Korea will be quite a power. With nukes. Possibly even stronger than Japan
    They're welcome to each other.
    Odd comment. South Korea is a remarkable and admirable country. They were as poor as sub Saharan Africans after WW2

    Now they conquer world culture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/04/korea-culture-k-pop-music-film-tv-hallyu-v-and-a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    Yes, maybe a little unfair.

    A view borne from my character traits. The S-Korean society is of course highly productive but IMO its also deeply flawed.


    Borderline racist, arguably, but whatevs, I’m in a benign mood

    South Korean society definitely has its flaws, see their demographic crisis. But then this is happening in Italy and Eastern Europe just as badly

    Also, South Korea is honest about its societal flaws and examines them in front of the world: eg Squid Game

    That’s a healthy sign. It’s a clever, functioning, self aware and peaceful democracy, that makes great Netflix dramas. It’s not Russia
    Racist I don't think so, more selfishness. I would not have done well in South Korea. My impression of the place was the pressure to conform and be part of the group. Plus the education system would have broken me.

    Maybe not the best reasons to wish the North on them. Just not the place for me.
    My takeaway from Korean dramas is people are expected to be more deferential, more formal, and they kick people in the shins when they are upset.
  • stodge said:

    Mid evening all :)

    A trip up to Scotland for Liz Truss tomorrow and she will return "in triumph" to give us all a glimpse into many think will be a return to 1979.

    As I've said before, the Thatcherites had the not inconsiderable assistance of North Sea Oil, Privatisation receipts and a group of desperate idiots in Buenos Aires.

    I'd certainly argue Truss faces as daunting an in-tray as any incoming PM since Thatcher but one can also argue a lot of the problems are going to be hard for her to control directly. She can do nothing, for example, directly about the conflict in the Ukraine and she can do little about the fact of rising energy prices - both oil and gas rose in price today and it seems we may have to adjust to $90 a barrel oil as the "new normal".

    I remain a simpleton at heart compared to what I'm informed are the towering intellects on this forum - if the plan is to freeze energy bills for the consumers, fine, I get that but the fact remains the gas and electricity is being supplied at higher prices so someone is going to have to pay the balance - the Government presumably?

    I also remain bemused at how, given an annual debt interest of £100 billion and the other myriad calls on the public purse such as defence, health, pensions and the Police (all of which, we are told by Conservatives, are vital), there is any scope for more than a gesture in terms of reducing taxes and even then is that shortfall in revenue to be met by public expenditure reductions and if so, what, where and when?

    The more thoughtful local authorities, who are curious beasts by nature, are already war gaming 10-15% net reductions in Government financial support and the impact on Service provision. Some are already trying to sell off their mostly unused office space (I see central Government is trying to sell off £1.5 billion of office estate so JRM's plan to get the civil servants back to their desks, like all his other stupid ideas, is all image and no substance).

    It would be churlish not to wish Truss and the new Government well - I disagree with her at a fundamental philosophical level and I hope she and her Ministers adopt a less ideological and more pragmatic aspect in terms of practical governing (the successful PMs know when to be ideologues and when to be sensible in Government).

    Good post and of course the NI reverse was largely mitigated when Sunak excluded those earning £34,000 or less

    Th CBI said today that they pay 19% corporation tax already, but that in April an uplift to 25% was unwelcome i this climate
    Sunak never excluded those earning £34k or less. He excluded those earning about £12k or less.
    He excluded them from this years NI rise
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,799

    Woke department, channelling Leon - an interesting piece about how the meaning of "Jerusalem" has changed back and forth over the years. The musical discussion is over my head, but I see the abiguity of the text.

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/sep/05/anti-empire-anti-fascist-pro-suffragette-last-night-of-the-proms-jerusalem-william-blake

    Of course Blake was a revolutionary. It is amazing he has ever fallen out of favour with the Woke Left

    One thing tho: I am almost certain he WAS referring to the myth of Jesus landing, as a boy, in a Cornish cove. “And did those feet” refers to Jesus not the obscure uncle Joseph of Arimathea (who came back with the Grail)

    True story: many years ago i went for a walk around St Anthony Head across the waters from yachty St Mawes. As I approached Place Manor i was drawn to one shining little cove, overhung with tamarisks and cedars. Just so luminously beautiful

    i got back to my family house in Truro and relayed my experience, and my Dad said: “Er, you do realise that is supposedly the cove where Jesus landed, as a boy”

    I had no idea at all. Really. i had no idea Blake had referenced it, I had no idea the legend existed. Yet I was struck by that same cove

    I don’t believe Jesus landed as a boy in Cornwall. I do believe some places have a genius of their own, which inspire legends
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,958
    Leon said:

    You need to go back to what happened in Korea during the Japanese occupation in the early 1940s to understand why the country is so loathed. One of the drivers of the South Korean Economic Miracle has been the desire to get one up on the Japan. In my working days I had an office in Seoul

    One of my stray random vivid travel memories is being in Seoul in about 1995 as lunch hour struck, Suddenly millions of happy young Korean office workers poured into the streets to eat bibimbap, laughing, chatty, friendly, excitable. A surge of brilliant energy. The Koreans are perhaps more exuberant than the relatively introverted Japanese, which added to the vibe

    The sense of a country on the rise and going places was palpable. And so it has proved
    I don't have very many travel stories, but I travelled to Daejeon, 3 hours from Seoul by bus, for a scientific conference around 2009-ish. Plenary session was delivered by the South Korean Prime Minister, I think it was, so security was very tight, and given the size of the conference it was translated into a myriad of different languages you could listen to on headphones like being at the UN, or something. From memory it was relatively soon after an unfortunate incident with a ship and a N. Korean mine, so I seem to remember relation were...tense... at the time, even by usual standards.

    The people were lovely - absolutely desperate to practice their (most excellent) English with any Westerner who'd chat to them. They really loved to talk about football, particularly Man Utd. so I hope I didn't disappoint them too much when I mentioned Scottish football in return (as I was legally bound to) :smiley:
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    There are no good solutions, when energy prices go through the roof.

    The one that the government is (apparently) proposing seems among the least bad. Putting the boot into the better off is not something that would go down well with the voters that the government is aiming to win back.
  • BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
    You know that is nonsense no doubt including peoples homes which no party could sell to the electorate
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,588

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
    You know that is nonsense no doubt including peoples homes which no party could sell to the electorate
    Because the selfish property-owning class are unwilling to actually share the pain.
  • Mortimer said:

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
    Probably 95% are voters.

    Probably less than 5% could easily afford that. Maybe less than 2%.

    Your policy is a guaranteed election loser.

    Back to the day job methinks.
    It's not my policy. I was giving an example.
    Yes but provide a viable one
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,024

    BBC economics editor saying that Truss and her team are engaged with energy companies as of now to agree a 2 year energy price cap for consumers at a cost of approximately 90 billion

    Additional a price cap of some sort will also apply to small businesses inflating the figure over £100 billion

    If Truss announces this scheme or something similar than the debate changes and of course consumers will be relieved

    And before anyone says windfall taxes will pay for this they simply will not, and it is likely to be a scheme payable over 20 years on energy bills

    Depends on the level of the cap.

    But yeah, make millennials pay for it. Again.
    If it’s being repaid through energy bills the millennials will also be getting the benefit.

    The current asset rich should be paying. It shouldn't be coming out of the future income of the young, who already face a ridiculous cost of living.
    You are conflating 2 issues

    If you believe energy prices are too high solve that

    If you believe that the asset rich aren’t paying their fair share then solve that

    Don’t try to use the same solution to address two problems
    Truss’s solution is not going to reduce energy prices, nor is it going to make the asset rich pay their fair share, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    You are complaining that the cost of the freeze will be paid for out of taxation not by the asset rich.

    Money is fungible - pay for the cost of the freeze out of borrowing and then look at the appropriate tax structure

    Don’t design a complicated scheme to make the asset rich pay for the cost of the freeze directly
    Why do you think "let everyone pay over 20 years" is any less complicated than "let the rich pay now"?
    I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion
    According to a quick Google, 3.5m households are millionaires.

    £28k ish each is £100 billion. You're welcome.
    You know that is nonsense no doubt including peoples homes which no party could sell to the electorate
    But it is still wealth. And crystallisable wealth. You can sell a house, take out a mortgage on it, and so on. HYUFD is always going on about this wealth and its importance to Tory voters, lsuch as you were.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,925

    FF43 said:

    When Starmer proposed an energy bill cap a few weeks ago, I thought Conservatives would inevitably follow where Starmer led, despite their earlier criticisms. Including not being means tested. I also expected them to pretend their plan was radically different. This all looks to be the case.

    The Truss plan as leaked likely has a couple of further defects compared with the Starmer one. Paying through future bills is regressive compared with doing it through taxation. The poor will pay relatively more than the rich in the years to come. It's also more costly to borrow that way. This is par for the course. Wasteful and unfair is the Conservative way of doing things these days - Starmer should really be hammering that message.

    Nevertheless capping energy prices is a necessary thing to do - which is why they are doing it of course.

    Same question arises

    If you are to raise taxes you need to answer this question

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion and what further taxes would be needed

    Germany seems to think it is a solution as does Sturgeon if I heard her correctly
    I definitely think governments should consider windfall taxes - maybe as threat to encourage energy providers to enter into long term stable contracts. If they entered into investments assuming prices that are one-tenth what they are today, we don't have to give them the upside.


  • I come back to the two questions I raised

    How much does a windfall tax and even a wealth tax ameliorate the £100 billion

    It depends on the details, not least the rate and the duration. A reasonable middle course between the Starmer plan and what we think the Truss plan will be would be to pay the cost of the cap over 20 years, but recover it through a wealth tax and/or an extra band of income tax. Just putting it into debt is the sort of thing that Conservatives always claim Labour will do...
    I have some sympathy with that and a higher 45% bracket would be a start
  • TresTres Posts: 1,362
    edited September 5
    Reading the life and times of Truss. She has never done ANYTHING of importance has she?
This discussion has been closed.