Labour 48% (+1) Conservative 31% (-3) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Reform UK 7% (+2) Green 5% (+2) Plaid Cymru 1% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 21 August
Reform very high in the red wall.
Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
What is it with your obsession with charisma?
This is about running the country not prime time entertainment.
Labour 48% (+1) Conservative 31% (-3) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Reform UK 7% (+2) Green 5% (+2) Plaid Cymru 1% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 21 August
Reform very high in the red wall.
Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
Seems you are not on team Truss yet and still lamenting Johnson and even Farage
@MoonRabbit from last thread Thats what im waiting to see. The Truss plan and Starmer plan will probably have similar net effects in freezing but truss AIUI is for 2 years and slightly better protects lower end users whilst punishing higher end a bit more. The key however is businesses - Davey and Starmers freeze does nothing for them, if Truss does then her plan is superior regardless of raising 4% of the cost via a windfall tax or not. No point us all staying warm and there being no businesses left to utilise and work for Edit - no business measures and Truss can do one on day one
Horse Battery can make a fine socialist out of you yet, Woolie if you are selling us a socialist energy price freeze on PB 🤭
I don’t dislike the element of trying some compulsion of everyone saving energy, but is it enough compulsion and no inherent vice?
Labours policy would be the best value for money option for the nation, at shielding billpayers from the imminent 80% rise set for October, and another jump in January. The weakness of it though is the crisis will not be over by March 2023.
My main attack on Truss leaked proposal, and that is all it is, she hasn’t nailed herself to anything, is the need for windfall tax to pay for some it, not just fairness signalling, but the political element of getting much needed buy in from the public.
A windfall tax already exists though. I could see the logic of extending its duration as a signal only, not its scope. Labours policy leaves business to wither on the vine. Economically catastrophic for millions via job losses, services lost etc. It was too rushed, too limited in scope and too focussed on 'getting in the news'
And there lies the problem. Labour doesn't understand business. It never has (even during Blair premiership) and it never will. It sees business, whether large or small as a cash cow to tax as much as possible. It is why I would have struggled to vote Labour even if the Clown was still PM.
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
@MoonRabbit from last thread Thats what im waiting to see. The Truss plan and Starmer plan will probably have similar net effects in freezing but truss AIUI is for 2 years and slightly better protects lower end users whilst punishing higher end a bit more. The key however is businesses - Davey and Starmers freeze does nothing for them, if Truss does then her plan is superior regardless of raising 4% of the cost via a windfall tax or not. No point us all staying warm and there being no businesses left to utilise and work for Edit - no business measures and Truss can do one on day one
Horse Battery can make a fine socialist out of you yet, Woolie if you are selling us a socialist energy price freeze on PB 🤭
I don’t dislike the element of trying some compulsion of everyone saving energy, but is it enough compulsion and no inherent vice?
Labours policy would be the best value for money option for the nation, at shielding billpayers from the imminent 80% rise set for October, and another jump in January. The weakness of it though is the crisis will not be over by March 2023.
My main attack on Truss leaked proposal, and that is all it is, she hasn’t nailed herself to anything, is the need for windfall tax to pay for some it, not just fairness signalling, but the political element of getting much needed buy in from the public.
The problems with the windfall tax idea include, but are not limited to:
(a) Not all "energy firms" have made massive profits. The energy suppliers - the firms that ordinary people actually deal with - really haven't; (b) Those firms that have made bigger profits than usual are in many cases just balancing out the losses they made during lockdown. Why should we tax the profits but not compensate the losses?
(c) we need vast investment in energy generation to drive energy independence. Why would firms invest if the profits are taxed away?
d) Explain by what mechanism we can tax the Qatari government and other non-UK based gas producers.
We can get them to buy all the rest of the football clubs and let them splurge on building new stadiums and paying stupid wages thus boosting the vat and income tax takes. Problem solved.
There is no free lunch, no government money to be splurged that doesn't end up back on taxpayers. If you demand 'the government' takes action then it is taxpayers money they spend when they do.
If only the governmemt would use their own money! Taxpayers are on the hook! Quick, windfall tax some payers of tax.....
Assuming she does something to keep energy bills affordable for most, which I don’t think she can avoid, if she can also do something to ensure voters can see their GP when they need to, without the stress of fighting the receptionist, she may get ordinary voters to re-elect her.
Labour 48% (+1) Conservative 31% (-3) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Reform UK 7% (+2) Green 5% (+2) Plaid Cymru 1% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 21 August
Reform very high in the red wall.
Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
Seems you are not on team Truss yet and still lamenting Johnson and even Farage
Well after that speech I would hardly call it inspiring oratory but we await and see what her policies are.
I will always support the leader of the Tory Party whoever they are, including Truss but I am also not going to stop saying what I genuinely think about the political situation on here
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
She's going to make us all dig holes this winter, so we're very warm and don't need heating?
Labour 48% (+1) Conservative 31% (-3) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Reform UK 7% (+2) Green 5% (+2) Plaid Cymru 1% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 21 August
Reform very high in the red wall.
Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
What is it with your obsession with charisma?
This is about running the country not prime time entertainment.
9 times out of 10 you need charisma to win a general election to govern the country for a sustainable period, that is just reality now whether you like it or not
It tends to support my view that many are too stupid to vote and should be sterilized to stop their idiot genes from contaminating the country.
Lol. That is one of the most amusing posts I have seen on here for a while. It does seem that listening to the views of the general populace too often damages one's faith in the principle of universal suffrage. Vox pops should come with a health warning.
Labour 48% (+1) Conservative 31% (-3) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Reform UK 7% (+2) Green 5% (+2) Plaid Cymru 1% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 21 August
Reform very high in the red wall.
Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
What is it with your obsession with charisma?
This is about running the country not prime time entertainment.
9 times out of 10 you need charisma to win a general election to govern the country for a sustainable period, that is just reality now whether you like it or not
You need a kind of charisma, certainly.
Mind you, Helen Clark of NZ won three terms despite having the social skills of a closet full of mothballs and a face like Dracula’s granny.
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
It tends to support my view that many are too stupid to vote and should be sterilized to stop their idiot genes from contaminating the country.
Lol. That is one of the most amusing posts I have seen on here for a while. It does seem that listening to the views of the general populace too often damages one's faith in the principle of universal suffrage. Vox pops should come with a health warning.
Anyone who has been canvassing knows that already. But it’s better than the alternatives.
As a young person I will tell you of my priorities from PM Truss:
CoL - energy bills Housing - we need to build lots of houses and bring prices down so we can get on the ladder Education - sort out tuition fees Transport - fix rising costs and terrible service
I will judge PM Truss on those
So with the 2 quid bus fare cap, if there is an extensive energy bills package this week you'll be thinking what a start!
Yes bus cap is a good start but we need work on the railways too.
She didn't mention railways. Just building roads. Twice.
Ms Sturgeon said something about holding Scotrail fares till at least March 2023. Don't know the details, mind, and the usual increase is in January anyway.
@MoonRabbit from last thread Thats what im waiting to see. The Truss plan and Starmer plan will probably have similar net effects in freezing but truss AIUI is for 2 years and slightly better protects lower end users whilst punishing higher end a bit more. The key however is businesses - Davey and Starmers freeze does nothing for them, if Truss does then her plan is superior regardless of raising 4% of the cost via a windfall tax or not. No point us all staying warm and there being no businesses left to utilise and work for Edit - no business measures and Truss can do one on day one
Horse Battery can make a fine socialist out of you yet, Woolie if you are selling us a socialist energy price freeze on PB 🤭
I don’t dislike the element of trying some compulsion of everyone saving energy, but is it enough compulsion and no inherent vice?
Labours policy would be the best value for money option for the nation, at shielding billpayers from the imminent 80% rise set for October, and another jump in January. The weakness of it though is the crisis will not be over by March 2023.
My main attack on Truss leaked proposal, and that is all it is, she hasn’t nailed herself to anything, is the need for windfall tax to pay for some it, not just fairness signalling, but the political element of getting much needed buy in from the public.
The problems with the windfall tax idea include, but are not limited to:
(a) Not all "energy firms" have made massive profits. The energy suppliers - the firms that ordinary people actually deal with - really haven't; (b) Those firms that have made bigger profits than usual are in many cases just balancing out the losses they made during lockdown. Why should we tax the profits but not compensate the losses?
(c) we need vast investment in energy generation to drive energy independence. Why would firms invest if the profits are taxed away?
d) Explain by what mechanism we can tax the Qatari government and other non-UK based gas producers.
Well we could impose import duties.... but I don't think that's what you have in mind.
Taxing the profits, somewhat more problematic. And we're not even particularly competitive at selling them expensive weapons these days.
It tends to support my view that many are too stupid to vote and should be sterilized to stop their idiot genes from contaminating the country.
Lol. That is one of the most amusing posts I have seen on here for a while. It does seem that listening to the views of the general populace too often damages one's faith in the principle of universal suffrage. Vox pops should come with a health warning.
I’m glad you liked it ! It’s like broadcasters tend to put up a sign saying , single digit IQs welcome ! I need to stop watching them as they seriously wind me up !
Labour 48% (+1) Conservative 31% (-3) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Reform UK 7% (+2) Green 5% (+2) Plaid Cymru 1% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 21 August
Reform very high in the red wall.
Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
What is it with your obsession with charisma?
This is about running the country not prime time entertainment.
HY is/was always obsessed with GE performance and nothing else. As I have said before it is like employing someone that turns out to be shit and insisting on keeping them because they are good at interviews.
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Bulldozers and tractors have unfortunate connotations of late. Best avoided in metaphors to do with ground-breaking.
As a young person I will tell you of my priorities from PM Truss:
CoL - energy bills Housing - we need to build lots of houses and bring prices down so we can get on the ladder Education - sort out tuition fees Transport - fix rising costs and terrible service
I will judge PM Truss on those
So with the 2 quid bus fare cap, if there is an extensive energy bills package this week you'll be thinking what a start!
Yes bus cap is a good start but we need work on the railways too.
Remember that railway users are richer on average than the population as a whole, so you need to be careful to avoid the poor subsidising the rich.
Working population vs unemployed, pensioners and schoolkids and babies?
More than four in ten (42%) of those who have made more than 50 train journeys in the last year live in a high income household (i.e. which we have classified as any household with a combined income of £40,000 or more). Just 10% live in a low income household – which we have classified as one where the combined income is less than £20,000 a year.
By contrast, only 14% of those who never use the train are in higher income households, while 31% are in lower income households.
Alternatively. Cities are prosperous and growing dense cities helps create more well-paid jobs. That may change if WFH takes off, but it's roughly true right now.
You can't have car commuting into the centre of properly large prosperous cities, because roads and car parks take up lots of space and stop the people-to-people interactions that make cities work. Out-of-town business parks served by cars don't seem to work as well.
So what do you want? To grow the cake(TM), or to hold on to a model that doesn't require explicit subsidy but puts a brake on economic growth?
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Fracking lol. She wants spades in the ground to dig thousands of holes that will fart out nothing useful.
But it will make a small band of Daily Mail readers happy that she's sticking it to the eco mob. Until their house starts jittering, that is.
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
No, it's incoherent even as a metaphor. Going with "Brexit is like having a baby" would have made more sense.
Apparently North Korea used to be pretty developed and well off, compared to South Korea, which was news to me. And how devastating american bombing was to them in the Korean War.
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
No, it's incoherent even as a metaphor. Going with "Brexit is like having a baby" would have made more sense.
Labour 48% (+1) Conservative 31% (-3) Liberal Democrat 7% (-1) Reform UK 7% (+2) Green 5% (+2) Plaid Cymru 1% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 21 August
Reform very high in the red wall.
Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
If you’re a Tory strategist then, together with the “Don’t knows who are really Tories” and swing back, I think you view that as all to play for. Especially if you are about to give voters a bung of cash AND pick a fight with the EU, whilst going round Eastern Europe in combat fatigues.
How are they going to select soundbites from that for the news ? Dreadful.
Fingers crossed she can govern better than she speaks.
As a non-Tory listening on the radio I thought she came across OK. I noticed a couple of odd pauses or emphases but no more than the average speaker.
But the odd thing was that apart from the tax cuts bit, it sounded like what an incoming Labour PM might say.
It was, being objective, a tricky gig for an absolute Boris loyalist. She had to say that not only was he a genius who got everything done but with hardly pausing for breath explain how that she was going to sort the fact that the entire country is shot to bits as a result of 12 years of Tory/Boris/Truss government.
She could have said about her 3 big issues: Energy policy is an absolute fail due to 12 years of uselessness and lack of preparation.
12 years of Tories has led to zero/low/minus growth.
The NHS is a chaotic expensive disaster due to lack of planning and capacity issues, deliberately ignored by Tory governments.
She could but didn't mention that 10 years would be optimistic for sorting much of it.
Assuming she does something to keep energy bills affordable for most, which I don’t think she can avoid, if she can also do something to ensure voters can see their GP when they need to, without the stress of fighting the receptionist, she may get ordinary voters to re-elect her.
Speech wasn't too bad. She does better when she doesn't have to stop for audience applause. So similar to Theresa I get the feeling she doesn't really "do" people. Which is unfortunate as it's the people that are going to have to vote for her in the end...
Truss doesn't "do" people = she has no charisma. TMay had some. Truss seems less personable than any PM since Gordon Brown. She is lucky that Keir Starmer has no charisma either and is less personable than any Labour leader since ... Gordon Brown.
The next general election will be between the 2 dullest leaders of the main parties since at least Heath v Wilson but at least Wilson had some folksy charisma.
Indeed you probably have to go back to the 1922 general election and Bonar Law as the new Conservative PM v Clynes as Leader of the Labour Party which overtook the Liberals as the main opposition to find Tory and Labour leaders so dull
After the last few years, we need dull. We need boring. We need competent. We don’t need charisma.
It tends to support my view that many are too stupid to vote and should be sterilized to stop their idiot genes from contaminating the country.
Lol. That is one of the most amusing posts I have seen on here for a while. It does seem that listening to the views of the general populace too often damages one's faith in the principle of universal suffrage. Vox pops should come with a health warning.
I’m glad you liked it ! It’s like broadcasters tend to put up a sign saying , single digit IQs welcome ! I need to stop watching them as they seriously wind me up !
They could use a warning such as "interviewing of the terminally stupid took place during the making of this film. More sensitive viewers of a more nuanced political perspective are advised to turn away now"
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
After rewatching it, I still think it was a mistake. It may be her script was badly formatted.
So the incoming PM simply does not reappoint people, rather than sacks them.
But in reality it is not treated that way. Remember May and Osborne?
No, I think the new PM has to actively sack them. In theory ministers have all been appointed via the Queen and in role until they are not, I think, irrespective of PM (other than in GEs).
Assuming she does something to keep energy bills affordable for most, which I don’t think she can avoid, if she can also do something to ensure voters can see their GP when they need to, without the stress of fighting the receptionist, she may get ordinary voters to re-elect her.
Any practical solutions for that on offer?
I understand she is to address doctors concerns over their pensions to retain them in the workforce
Seen the Truss speech. 5/10. The agenda looks so tired. The 12 years really show.
There's simply no way to connect the assertion the government has done a fantastic job under the amazing Boris (ignore the others) but also that we are all absolutely screwed without radical action. The attempt is made to suggest it is all down to Putin, but that's putting too much on him for all our problems.
Seen the Truss speech. 5/10. The agenda looks so tired. The 12 years really show.
There's simply no way to connect the assertion the government has done a fantastic job under the amazing Boris (ignore the others) but also that we are all absolutely screwed without radical action. The attempt is made to suggest it is all down to Putin, but that's putting too much on him for all our problems.
It’s not the worst “war time” narrative though, to make the best of it and frame everything as part of a grand plan to stand up to Russia. Probably her best chance.
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
Apparently North Korea used to be pretty developed and well off, compared to South Korea, which was news to me. And how devastating american bombing was to them in the Korean War.
So the incoming PM simply does not reappoint people, rather than sacks them.
But in reality it is not treated that way. Remember May and Osborne?
No, I think the new PM has to actively sack them. In theory ministers have all been appointed via the Queen and in role until they are not, I think, irrespective of PM (other than in GEs).
The point being whether it is literally the case or not, in effect they are clearly being sacked by how they are treated, as the Osborne example shows. It's also why some resign first to avoid being 'sacked', irrespective of whether it is a technical sacking or not.
So objecting to the term sacking is pointless - Truss is clearly sacking people whatever it is called, by not confirming them in place.
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
No, it's incoherent even as a metaphor. Going with "Brexit is like having a baby" would have made more sense.
Because you’ll be paying for it the rest of your life?
Massacre of the Rishi-ites? Dominic Raab, Grant Shapps, Steve Barclay all sacked from cabinet within an hour of Truss entering No10. Three of his most prominent front bench backers. https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1567197285490036751
Seen the Truss speech. 5/10. The agenda looks so tired. The 12 years really show.
There's simply no way to connect the assertion the government has done a fantastic job under the amazing Boris (ignore the others) but also that we are all absolutely screwed without radical action. The attempt is made to suggest it is all down to Putin, but that's putting too much on him for all our problems.
It’s not the worst “war time” narrative though, to make the best of it and frame everything as part of a grand plan to stand up to Russia. Probably her best chance.
By the end Boris seemed to say the word Ukraine every other sentence. And the other sentence contained Zelensky.
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.
EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.
Was injuncted by a court not to turn up, disobeyed injunction. the jail is for contempt not the underlying offence
Also he said that this was all because of his Christian faith. It is a real struggle to derive from the Bible that God hates queers; it's fucking impossible to pinpoint where he rules out calling people "they."
Assuming she does something to keep energy bills affordable for most, which I don’t think she can avoid, if she can also do something to ensure voters can see their GP when they need to, without the stress of fighting the receptionist, she may get ordinary voters to re-elect her.
Any practical solutions for that on offer?
I understand she is to address doctors concerns over their pensions to retain them in the workforce
This would be an excellent move
Great. So the plan is to slightly attenuate the clear reduction in capacity that is coming down the line.
So supply is not going to fall quite so much. How is the supply going to actually increase?
It's not unlike energy policy. There will come a crunch but rather than prices we have waiting lists.
Key difference however. Rather than us gradually moving to LED bulbs and what not over the last ten years, i.e. reducing demand like for like, we have people becoming fatter, getting COPD, type II diabetes etc.
Turn your heating down/telly off.
Turn you type II diabetes / COPD off. Doesn't quite work.
@MoonRabbit from last thread Thats what im waiting to see. The Truss plan and Starmer plan will probably have similar net effects in freezing but truss AIUI is for 2 years and slightly better protects lower end users whilst punishing higher end a bit more. The key however is businesses - Davey and Starmers freeze does nothing for them, if Truss does then her plan is superior regardless of raising 4% of the cost via a windfall tax or not. No point us all staying warm and there being no businesses left to utilise and work for Edit - no business measures and Truss can do one on day one
Horse Battery can make a fine socialist out of you yet, Woolie if you are selling us a socialist energy price freeze on PB 🤭
I don’t dislike the element of trying some compulsion of everyone saving energy, but is it enough compulsion and no inherent vice?
Labours policy would be the best value for money option for the nation, at shielding billpayers from the imminent 80% rise set for October, and another jump in January. The weakness of it though is the crisis will not be over by March 2023.
My main attack on Truss leaked proposal, and that is all it is, she hasn’t nailed herself to anything, is the need for windfall tax to pay for some it, not just fairness signalling, but the political element of getting much needed buy in from the public.
The problems with the windfall tax idea include, but are not limited to:
(a) Not all "energy firms" have made massive profits. The energy suppliers - the firms that ordinary people actually deal with - really haven't; (b) Those firms that have made bigger profits than usual are in many cases just balancing out the losses they made during lockdown. Why should we tax the profits but not compensate the losses?
Are you telling me, or telling Rishi and Boris? Are you telling Truss to give the money back, becuase it shouldn’t have been taken? are you entirely sure Truss won’t flip flop on that too, like the socialist energy price freeze she’s now bringing in, because you know I’ll be straight back to ask for your comment 🙂
Alternately, St Bart PB Pirate, I’ve just read his anti Freeze (sic) post, is sticking to his guns, this labour policy Truss is being in is wrong - holding her nerve on letting energy markets work, while addressing hardship through targeted welfare support and tax cuts is the only honest path to match the radically free market rhetoric. That’s not you then Driver?
Good speech and interesting that she referenced building and spades in the ground so much. Perhaps she's planning some genuine free market reforms on planning.
Tbh I was wondering if the Prime Minister accidentally skipped a section there. It made no sense.
The Prime Minister said, "We'll get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills."
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Metaphor surely? No planning and talking, immediate action
No, it's incoherent even as a metaphor. Going with "Brexit is like having a baby" would have made more sense.
Because you’ll be paying for it the rest of your life?
Brexit is very much like making love to a beautiful woman…
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
No he hasn't based on that story.
He was jailed for breaching an injunction (indeed point-blank refusing to comply with an injunction) requiring him to stay away from the school during disciplinary proceedings.
Whether or not the disciplinary proceedings lead to his dismissal (HIS description of them suggests they are harsh, but I suspect there is much more to them than he's saying) you don't ignore a court injunction.
Comments
This is about running the country not prime time entertainment.
It tends to support my view that many are too stupid to vote and should be sterilized to stop their idiot genes from contaminating the country.
It makes no sense; she must have lost her place in the script and missed a sentence.
Taxpayers are on the hook! Quick, windfall tax some payers of tax.....
I will always support the leader of the Tory Party whoever they are, including Truss but I am also not going to stop saying what I genuinely think about the political situation on here
Spot on, agreed, well said, "this", +1, hats off etc
I am not surprised but she has a big mountain to climb
Mind you, Helen Clark of NZ won three terms despite having the social skills of a closet full of mothballs and a face like Dracula’s granny.
So far I am 100% on board with Truss’s announcements.
Taxing the profits, somewhat more problematic.
And we're not even particularly competitive at selling them expensive weapons these days.
But in reality it is not treated that way. Remember May and Osborne?
You can't have car commuting into the centre of properly large prosperous cities, because roads and car parks take up lots of space and stop the people-to-people interactions that make cities work. Out-of-town business parks served by cars don't seem to work as well.
So what do you want? To grow the cake(TM), or to hold on to a model that doesn't require explicit subsidy but puts a brake on economic growth?
But it will make a small band of Daily Mail readers happy that she's sticking it to the eco mob. Until their house starts jittering, that is.
This evening, he announced that he's leaving government .
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/those-jedi-mind-tricks-dont-work-on-me-dominic-raab-on-truss-sunak-and-his-own-future
Going with "Brexit is like having a baby" would have made more sense.
How North Korea become so insanely poor
Basically, idiotic ideology, shocking.
The entire Cabinet fell with Boris. A new Cabinet is being formed. There are no sackings today.
She could have said about her 3 big issues:
Energy policy is an absolute fail due to 12 years of uselessness and lack of preparation.
12 years of Tories has led to zero/low/minus growth.
The NHS is a chaotic expensive disaster due to lack of planning and capacity issues, deliberately ignored by Tory governments.
She could but didn't mention that 10 years would be optimistic for sorting much of it.
Talk about a plan backfiring!
This would be an excellent move
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.
EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1567196654524047365
So objecting to the term sacking is pointless - Truss is clearly sacking people whatever it is called, by not confirming them in place.
I thought for a moment you'd come out in favour of jailing pupils for lack of respect.
(cf Patel/Braverman.)
Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1567197285490036751
Also he said that this was all because of his Christian faith. It is a real struggle to derive from the Bible that God hates queers; it's fucking impossible to pinpoint where he rules out calling people "they."
Edit - you saw it too. Ignore!
So supply is not going to fall quite so much. How is the supply going to actually increase?
It's not unlike energy policy. There will come a crunch but rather than prices we have waiting lists.
Key difference however. Rather than us gradually moving to LED bulbs and what not over the last ten years, i.e. reducing demand like for like, we have people becoming fatter, getting COPD, type II diabetes etc.
Turn your heating down/telly off.
Turn you type II diabetes / COPD off. Doesn't quite work.
Alternately, St Bart PB Pirate, I’ve just read his anti Freeze (sic) post, is sticking to his guns, this labour policy Truss is being in is wrong - holding her nerve on letting energy markets work, while addressing hardship through targeted welfare support and tax cuts is the only honest path to match the radically free market rhetoric. That’s not you then Driver?
He was jailed for breaching an injunction (indeed point-blank refusing to comply with an injunction) requiring him to stay away from the school during disciplinary proceedings.
Whether or not the disciplinary proceedings lead to his dismissal (HIS description of them suggests they are harsh, but I suspect there is much more to them than he's saying) you don't ignore a court injunction.