UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
The government, of course, as they are the ones who would levy it. The level and extent would be a pragmatic rather than a principled decision.
UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
They’re unearned war profits. Easily measured.
See Sunak’s speech, earlier in the year.
Is the reverse then true? Should the Gvt underwrite “excess losses”?
Well we own Octopus energy for that reason. And a bank.
And the railway companies
Infrastructure, and some companies, but not all surely.
UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
They’re unearned war profits. Easily measured.
See Sunak’s speech, earlier in the year.
Is the reverse then true? Should the Gvt underwrite “excess losses”?
They kind of did with furlough and other interventions during the pandemic.
Watching on a delay. Three questions in, and I’m liking this Prime Minister already.
She's good. I've said she is being underestimated and written-off too early. LP questions are appearing a tad negative and uncharitable. Whether we agree with her policies or not, let's rejoice that she is no shopping-trolley.
I disagree. I think she’s the ultimate shopping trolley. The “rigid ideologue” thing is her necessary facade. A kind of externalised psychological coping mechanism to disguise the fact she’s constantly changing her mind.
Her opinions and ideology have been entirely self serving, throughout her career. She’ll do what she thinks she has to do to hold on to power, perhaps even more ruthlessly and blatantly than any previous PM.
UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
They’re unearned war profits. Easily measured.
See Sunak’s speech, earlier in the year.
Is the reverse then true? Should the Gvt underwrite “excess losses”?
Well we own Octopus energy for that reason. And a bank.
And the railway companies
Infrastructure, and some companies, but not all surely.
We guaranteed their payments so they wouldn't go bust, we did that for all companies
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
She seems to think chiropractors are mainstream.
*blinks*
A UCL chemist should certainly not be sympathetic to the notion of succussation, so good for her if that is so - but chiropractice? (Chiropraxis? Chiropracty?)
Today program today
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
They’re unearned war profits. Easily measured.
See Sunak’s speech, earlier in the year.
Is the reverse then true? Should the Gvt underwrite “excess losses”?
They kind of did with furlough and other interventions during the pandemic.
Apologies, don't know how to edit a post. I meant to say 'they kind of did with hospitality and other industries'. I wasn't specifically talking about energy companies with that post.
The dividing lines are very sharp. This is good. The UK (actually, England) needs to decide whether it wants to be America or Europe.
That's what I was thinking after her short introductory speech. Whatever you think about her plans, and my views aren't good, after Johnson she at least brings some sort of clarity to things, which, in the short term at least, almost feels like some kind of a relief from the wandering Johnsonian opportunism and void.
I could not agree more. I watched the exchange, and it was far more informative and, therefore, consequential than anything we got with Johnson. There is no gaping divide in personality, background or life experience between Truss and Starner. That may end up improving the quality of political discourse, which cannot be anything other than positive (and which, I think, will also favour him (but I would say that)).
The contrast between Johnson and Truss is stark and just highlights why Johnson should never come back and conservative mps need to be grateful that Truss may just save their seats
(She's not always right, but she's always worth reading.)
Also FWIW, the Washington Post has a far larger range of opinion writers than the NYT, which is one of the reasons I subscribe to the Post, rather than the Times.
Watching on a delay. Three questions in, and I’m liking this Prime Minister already.
She's good. I've said she is being underestimated and written-off too early. LP questions are appearing a tad negative and uncharitable. Whether we agree with her policies or not, let's rejoice that she is no shopping-trolley.
I disagree. I think she’s the ultimate shopping trolley. The “rigid ideologue” thing is her necessary facade. A kind of externalised psychological coping mechanism to disguise the fact she’s constantly changing her mind.
Her opinions and ideology have been entirely self serving, throughout her career. She’ll do what she thinks she has to do to hold on to power, perhaps even more ruthlessly and blatantly than any previous PM.
She’s the ultimate shopping trolley, imo.
Those changes of direction were purposeful, even if you find the purpose disagreeable. Shopping trolleys are in contrast utterly random.
The dividing lines are very sharp. This is good. The UK (actually, England) needs to decide whether it wants to be America or Europe.
Neither. Closer to Europe than America in most ways but not a typical European country either. And there are places outside of Europe and America that are making massive investments in education, technology and infrastructure that we should be looking at too.
Yes, but there is a fundamental question: do we want US levels of taxation and the resulting public services and infrastructure; or European levels? It's early days, but it seems to me that is the dividing line that is emerging. It's one that has been ducked for far too long.
Watching on a delay. Three questions in, and I’m liking this Prime Minister already.
She's good. I've said she is being underestimated and written-off too early. LP questions are appearing a tad negative and uncharitable. Whether we agree with her policies or not, let's rejoice that she is no shopping-trolley.
I disagree. I think she’s the ultimate shopping trolley. The “rigid ideologue” thing is her necessary facade. A kind of externalised psychological coping mechanism to disguise the fact she’s constantly changing her mind.
Her opinions and ideology have been entirely self serving, throughout her career. She’ll do what she thinks she has to do to hold on to power, perhaps even more ruthlessly and blatantly than any previous PM.
She’s the ultimate shopping trolley, imo.
I can see this point of view, but compared to Johnson, even the fact that she seems prepared to defend positions in the short or medium term seems refreshing. It's difficult to overstate how depressing it is to watch someone continually and shamelessly shift their position every day, for three years, so perhaps she's also doing well purely by comparison.
It'll be interesting to see how much she sticks to her guns.
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
She seems to think chiropractors are mainstream.
*blinks*
A UCL chemist should certainly not be sympathetic to the notion of succussation, so good for her if that is so - but chiropractice? (Chiropraxis? Chiropracty?)
Today program today
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
They’re unearned war profits. Easily measured.
See Sunak’s speech, earlier in the year.
Is the reverse then true? Should the Gvt underwrite “excess losses”?
They kind of did with furlough and other interventions during the pandemic.
Yup, and there are consequences to that. Frankly, see also the financial crash. Some firms need to fail to allow capitalism to do its job, and we are starting to forget that. No easy answer but I think we were a little protective for the long term good.
I quite like the idea of a truss tax: the more trusses there are in your roof, the more tax you pay.
It'll be a friendly nod back to the days of the ever-popular window tax.
Damn, paid for a special extra third truss in my new shed to deal with snow loading a couple of years back.
I was amused yesterday, when apparently the first thing that came to ? @Richard_Tyndall ?'s mind in respect to 'truss' was the medical truss. That would never have occurred to me: roofing or bridge trusses all the way for me.
The government is shelving Dominic Raab's Bill of Rights. Sources have told the BBC that the government is ‘reviewing the most effective means to deliver objectives through our legislative agenda’ and the Bill of Rights is ‘unlikely to progress in its current form.’
Watching on a delay. Three questions in, and I’m liking this Prime Minister already.
She's good. I've said she is being underestimated and written-off too early. LP questions are appearing a tad negative and uncharitable. Whether we agree with her policies or not, let's rejoice that she is no shopping-trolley.
I disagree. I think she’s the ultimate shopping trolley. The “rigid ideologue” thing is her necessary facade. A kind of externalised psychological coping mechanism to disguise the fact she’s constantly changing her mind.
Her opinions and ideology have been entirely self serving, throughout her career. She’ll do what she thinks she has to do to hold on to power, perhaps even more ruthlessly and blatantly than any previous PM.
She’s the ultimate shopping trolley, imo.
Those changes of direction were purposeful, even if you find the purpose disagreeable. Shopping trolleys are in contrast utterly random.
Random ideologically yes, but not entirely random. Populist, media -driven and coming from Johnson's unwillingness to be disliked. He was a weak leader.
The dividing lines are very sharp. This is good. The UK (actually, England) needs to decide whether it wants to be America or Europe.
Neither. Closer to Europe than America in most ways but not a typical European country either. And there are places outside of Europe and America that are making massive investments in education, technology and infrastructure that we should be looking at too.
Yes, but there is a fundamental question: do we want US levels of taxation and the resulting public services and infrastructure; or European levels? It's early days, but it seems to me that is the dividing line that is emerging. It's one that has been ducked for far too long.
Depends which European levels, Switzerland for example has significantly lower tax than we do and also more private insurance for healthcare
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
She seems to think chiropractors are mainstream.
*blinks*
A UCL chemist should certainly not be sympathetic to the notion of succussation, so good for her if that is so - but chiropractice? (Chiropraxis? Chiropracty?)
Today program today
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
The dividing lines are very sharp. This is good. The UK (actually, England) needs to decide whether it wants to be America or Europe.
Neither. Closer to Europe than America in most ways but not a typical European country either. And there are places outside of Europe and America that are making massive investments in education, technology and infrastructure that we should be looking at too.
Yes, but there is a fundamental question: do we want US levels of taxation and the resulting public services and infrastructure; or European levels? It's early days, but it seems to me that is the dividing line that is emerging. It's one that has been ducked for far too long.
Depends which European levels, Switzerland for example has significantly lower tax than we do and also more private insurance for healthcare
Oddly they've not chosen to privatise their railways, Bart has assured me all sensible countries have
Watching on a delay. Three questions in, and I’m liking this Prime Minister already.
She's good. I've said she is being underestimated and written-off too early. LP questions are appearing a tad negative and uncharitable. Whether we agree with her policies or not, let's rejoice that she is no shopping-trolley.
I disagree. I think she’s the ultimate shopping trolley. The “rigid ideologue” thing is her necessary facade. A kind of externalised psychological coping mechanism to disguise the fact she’s constantly changing her mind.
Her opinions and ideology have been entirely self serving, throughout her career. She’ll do what she thinks she has to do to hold on to power, perhaps even more ruthlessly and blatantly than any previous PM.
She’s the ultimate shopping trolley, imo.
I am inclined to agree with you, Liz is a shopping trolley.
But, it worked for that other prominent CND member, who became a self-serving PM ... Tony Blair.
It is one thing to be a member of Oxford University Liberal Democrats, but another to be President of OULDs and a member of the national executive committee of Liberal Democrat Youth and Students ... and then move so quickly Tory-wards.
I can see the universe in which Liz Truss could win another majority.
Certainly the right wing press will press the 'just like Margaret she has been underestimated' buttons and hammer every little thing as 'a return to Tory values'. That in itself wont be enough. How she handles the inevitable looming scandals (think those on suspension) and indiscipline generally will be key, as will any by election results resulting from Boris honours list. Realistically her route to a majority is to restore the Blue Wall and throw enough red meat to partially defend the Red, relying on the long term trend there to hit the brakes and resist on any reversal. Its not impossible but its a hell of a tough ask. Stopping Labour having a stable governmemt is probably best case scenario - Tories 290ish seats
I quite like the idea of a truss tax: the more trusses there are in your roof, the more tax you pay.
It'll be a friendly nod back to the days of the ever-popular window tax.
Damn, paid for a special extra third truss in my new shed to deal with snow loading a couple of years back.
I was amused yesterday, when apparently the first thing that came to ? @Richard_Tyndall ?'s mind in respect to 'truss' was the medical truss. That would never have occurred to me: roofing or bridge trusses all the way for me.
There's also the culinary one (poultry); I leave it to the likes of TSE if there is an, erm, alternative meaning.
The contrast between Johnson and Truss is stark and just highlights why Johnson should never come back and conservative mps need to be grateful that Truss may just save their seats
That is quite the statement BigG, we await the weekend polling to see whether it is true.
I expect Truss to get a bounce like most new PMs but would be surprised to see the Tories ahead, especially with Truss having a more rightwing Cabinet even than Boris' and much more of a laissez-faire one
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
She seems to think chiropractors are mainstream.
*blinks*
A UCL chemist should certainly not be sympathetic to the notion of succussation, so good for her if that is so - but chiropractice? (Chiropraxis? Chiropracty?)
Today program today
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
(She's not always right, but she's always worth reading.)
Also FWIW, the Washington Post has a far larger range of opinion writers than the NYT, which is one of the reasons I subscribe to the Post, rather than the Times.
I can see the universe in which Liz Truss could win another majority.
I agree . There’s two years before a GE and a lot can happen . Certainly those writing her off are being very premature .
I did repeatedly make the point that as I did not know much about Truss I thought is was wise to wait until she was seen at the dispatch box and announced her energy policy before writing her off and to be fair that was prescient
I think Truss needs to be smarter than simply ruling out a windfall tax. A scheme where the government effectively takes a (large) stake in domestic electricity generation in return for the £150bn subsidy is what I'd look at. Just as the state took a stake in the banks that were bailed out, the state should own part of the assets here as well until such time as the subsidy is effectively paid off and the companies are able to buy themselves out of state ownership.
Right now all we have is a £150bn transfer of money from the state to the private sector who are effectively getting free money to invest in new renewable energy generation.
The contrast between Johnson and Truss is stark and just highlights why Johnson should never come back and conservative mps need to be grateful that Truss may just save their seats
That is quite the statement BigG, we await the weekend polling to see whether it is true.
I expect Truss to get a bounce like most new PMs but would be surprised to see the Tories ahead
You're 100% focused on the CP winning a GE. I wonder whether some, inc CP voters, might prioritise other factors and principles ahead of just winning?
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
Directly on top of it, I hope. It needs squashing.
The problem with it is it is so cheap - just distilled water and one pill of each drug for all the NHS. Tempting.
And the placebo effect is very real. But could we not think of better lies to tell the subjects ?
No. That's what is genius about it. You can't lie because ethics, apparently, and if you write aqua et sucris on the label people will just google it. homeopathy is the only way of squaring this circle.
UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
Well, when I did A-level Economics back in the seventies there was a concept of "normal profits" i.e. the profit that needed to be made to prevent the owners deciding to pack it in and do something else instead. So presumably "excess profits" are anything above that level.
Pulling Raab's bill is presumably to avoid snarling up government business, rather than an ideological retreat.
Whitehall source says government is pulling second reading of the bill of rights - describes it as a "total mess" and that it needs a radical overhaul to stop it being vulnerable to multiple amendments https://mobile.twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1567475876274511876
I can see the universe in which Liz Truss could win another majority.
I agree . There’s two years before a GE and a lot can happen . Certainly those writing her off are being very premature .
I did repeatedly make the point that as I did not know much about Truss I thought is was wise to wait until she was seen at the dispatch box and announced her energy policy before writing her off and to be fair that was prescient
I was very pleased with her performance today
I think she did fine . And Starmer also did well . Thank heavens Johnson is gone !
The dividing lines are very sharp. This is good. The UK (actually, England) needs to decide whether it wants to be America or Europe.
Neither. Closer to Europe than America in most ways but not a typical European country either. And there are places outside of Europe and America that are making massive investments in education, technology and infrastructure that we should be looking at too.
Yes, but there is a fundamental question: do we want US levels of taxation and the resulting public services and infrastructure; or European levels? It's early days, but it seems to me that is the dividing line that is emerging. It's one that has been ducked for far too long.
Depends which European levels, Switzerland for example has significantly lower tax than we do and also more private insurance for healthcare
The contrast between Johnson and Truss is stark and just highlights why Johnson should never come back and conservative mps need to be grateful that Truss may just save their seats
That is quite the statement BigG, we await the weekend polling to see whether it is true.
I expect Truss to get a bounce like most new PMs but would be surprised to see the Tories ahead, especially with Truss having a more rightwing Cabinet even than Boris' and much more of a laissez-faire one
It is quite clear the difference and even the response on here seems to be accord that Johnson is over
You need to accept this and move on 100% with Truss to turn things round
I am not expecting an immediate poll bounce and frankly it is not relevant for me
UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totaling as much as £170 billion ($199 billion) over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that lay bare the revenue-raising potential of a windfall tax.
Treasury officials will deliver the assessment to the next prime minister when they take office on Sept. 6, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing internal calculations.
What is an “excess profit”? Who is to say it is “excess”? How much profit is one allowed to make? Might one not reframe this as “investment in energy sector to soar, and pension funds to benefit, as energy sector firms make record profit”?
Well, when I did A-level Economics back in the seventies there was a concept of "normal profits" i.e. the profit that needed to be made to prevent the owners deciding to pack it in and do something else instead. So presumably "excess profits" are anything above that level.
There was such a thing as an excess profits tax in the Great War - so they must have had a definition then. Not sure what happened in WW2.
Crackers to have a cap for the richest and those making well above average (also something I dislike about Labour's approach).
Its not ideal but then again its a cap on unit price..... should the wealthy pay more for the same chicken in a supermarket or the same pair of shoes at Clarks?
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
She seems to think chiropractors are mainstream.
*blinks*
A UCL chemist should certainly not be sympathetic to the notion of succussation, so good for her if that is so - but chiropractice? (Chiropraxis? Chiropracty?)
Today program today
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
For practical reasons a simple freezing of the cap makes sense even though it would still help those who won’t have problems paying their energy bills .
The government is shelving Dominic Raab's Bill of Rights. Sources have told the BBC that the government is ‘reviewing the most effective means to deliver objectives through our legislative agenda’ and the Bill of Rights is ‘unlikely to progress in its current form.’
I can see the universe in which Liz Truss could win another majority.
I agree . There’s two years before a GE and a lot can happen . Certainly those writing her off are being very premature .
I did repeatedly make the point that as I did not know much about Truss I thought is was wise to wait until she was seen at the dispatch box and announced her energy policy before writing her off and to be fair that was prescient
I was very pleased with her performance today
She didn't really say anything, but she didn't say anything very calmly.
Starmer struck the right tone for the day too. The shouty opposition MPs looked foolish.
Hopefully she can put to bed the whole notion of the clown king across the water narrative. She would be wise to let the Standards Committee to do its work and see Johnson recalled. Her premiership will run far smoother without Johnson sniping from the back benches.
I think Truss needs to be smarter than simply ruling out a windfall tax. A scheme where the government effectively takes a (large) stake in domestic electricity generation in return for the £150bn subsidy is what I'd look at. Just as the state took a stake in the banks that were bailed out, the state should own part of the assets here as well until such time as the subsidy is effectively paid off and the companies are able to buy themselves out of state ownership.
Right now all we have is a £150bn transfer of money from the state to the private sector who are effectively getting free money to invest in new renewable energy generation.
Some of that total is irrecoverable, even in that manner, but you're absolutely right that we shouldn't nationalise the losses and leave the private sector profits untouched.
I can see the universe in which Liz Truss could win another majority.
Certainly the right wing press will press the 'just like Margaret she has been underestimated' buttons and hammer every little thing as 'a return to Tory values'. That in itself wont be enough. How she handles the inevitable looming scandals (think those on suspension) and indiscipline generally will be key, as will any by election results resulting from Boris honours list. Realistically her route to a majority is to restore the Blue Wall and throw enough red meat to partially defend the Red, relying on the long term trend there to hit the brakes and resist on any reversal. Its not impossible but its a hell of a tough ask. Stopping Labour having a stable governmemt is probably best case scenario - Tories 290ish seats
We are still in what could be described as mid term, it is quite remarkable, that we are talking of a overall labour majority, after the Hartlepool by election, no one thought that was remotely possible, but I still think labour without gaining a load of seats in Scotland, have an enormous task on their hands, some sort of coalition is their best hope, which could be the worst result of all for the Tories, surely PR would follow swiftly in that case
"This essentially goes back to the New Right of the 1970s, and the idea that any work is morally improving and good work, with financial reward then roughly being a measure of how good that ( employed ) contribution is."
I am a cynical old bat and my time in the City cured me of any belief in the idea that financial reward is in any sense reflective of how good a person's contribution is.
Incidentally, the first chapter of James Rebanks' book "The Shepherd's Life" is very good indeed on the way that assumptions are made about those who live in a place without ever bothering to really find out who they are and why they are and live as they do, what they contribute and why. It made a deep impact on me when I first read it and I still go back to it from time to time.
For practical reasons a simple freezing of the cap makes sense even though it would still help those who won’t have problems paying their energy bills .
Im not a fan but concede its slmost certainly the only reslistic option in the face of the problem, but it must apply to businesses too. Id like to see the government in tandem set up a state provider as a failsafe and so they csn restrict durect propping up of private companies, having somewhere for customers and even staff where appropriate to roll into on failures.
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
Directly on top of it, I hope. It needs squashing.
The problem with it is it is so cheap - just distilled water and one pill of each drug for all the NHS. Tempting.
And the placebo effect is very real. But could we not think of better lies to tell the subjects ?
No. That's what is genius about it. You can't lie because ethics, apparently, and if you write aqua et sucris on the label people will just google it. homeopathy is the only way of squaring this circle.
One of the best exchanges I’ve read on here in ages. First decent argument I’ve read for homeopathy. Thanks!
Maybe I'm thick. But I just can't see how it all stacks up. Truss is going to spend huge sums of (taxpayers' or borrowed) money helping people and businesses with their energy bills. And 'fixing' the NHS backlog/ambulances/GPs/social care will also cost huge sums. This is all going to be done 'immediately' apparently.
But she's also going to deliver tax cuts immediately. Why?
One other idle thought - her repeated comments about needing to invest to make sure there are more jobs available - we're pretty much at full employment, aren't we.
Otherwise I agree with many - more civil and focused than her predecessor.
Sounds like the Russian front line in that area of Kharkiv oblast has collapsed. Ukraine are unlikely to have the reserves to fully take advantage, but a sign of how stretched Russian forces have become.
I think Truss needs to be smarter than simply ruling out a windfall tax. A scheme where the government effectively takes a (large) stake in domestic electricity generation in return for the £150bn subsidy is what I'd look at. Just as the state took a stake in the banks that were bailed out, the state should own part of the assets here as well until such time as the subsidy is effectively paid off and the companies are able to buy themselves out of state ownership.
Right now all we have is a £150bn transfer of money from the state to the private sector who are effectively getting free money to invest in new renewable energy generation.
Some of that total is irrecoverable, even in that manner, but you're absolutely right that we shouldn't nationalise the losses and leave the private sector profits untouched.
Yes, a fair proportion of the total will be paid to the likes of Qatar which we won't get back. However, we could easily grab 49% of SSE and other domestic producers of electricity and as dividends are paid out from electricity generation the holding can be reduced.
I was expecting a car crash and it isn't, but who the hell is going to pay for the energy cap?
We are. All of us. But mainly the young. Hugely unfair.
I suspect the rejection of the windfall tax narrative will cause her problems as time goes by.
Starmer set out his stall for the future. Truss was far better than anticipated, but then Starmer was also a revelation. I think he used to be bamboozled and frustrated by Johnson's absolute lies.
I can see the universe in which Liz Truss could win another majority.
Certainly the right wing press will press the 'just like Margaret she has been underestimated' buttons and hammer every little thing as 'a return to Tory values'. That in itself wont be enough. How she handles the inevitable looming scandals (think those on suspension) and indiscipline generally will be key, as will any by election results resulting from Boris honours list. Realistically her route to a majority is to restore the Blue Wall and throw enough red meat to partially defend the Red, relying on the long term trend there to hit the brakes and resist on any reversal. Its not impossible but its a hell of a tough ask. Stopping Labour having a stable governmemt is probably best case scenario - Tories 290ish seats
We are still in what could be described as mid term, it is quite remarkable, that we are talking of a overall labour majority, after the Hartlepool by election, no one thought that was remotely possible, but I still think labour without gaining a load of seats in Scotland, have an enormous task on their hands, some sort of coalition is their best hope, which could be the worst result of all for the Tories, surely PR would follow swiftly in that case
PR from coalition will likely require a referendum and even if not, if they are going down a multi member ward style solution, or anything altering dramatically the constituencies it wont be in place by the next election and could therefore simply be reversed
Mr. Dyed, it's public money being used to cut the price for everyone, including the very wealthiest.
Racking up perhaps £90bn of debt with half of it for those in the upper half of wealth is not something I can unequivocally support. And I don't support Labour's similarly broad brush approach.
The dividing lines are very sharp. This is good. The UK (actually, England) needs to decide whether it wants to be America or Europe.
Neither. Closer to Europe than America in most ways but not a typical European country either. And there are places outside of Europe and America that are making massive investments in education, technology and infrastructure that we should be looking at too.
Yes, but there is a fundamental question: do we want US levels of taxation and the resulting public services and infrastructure; or European levels? It's early days, but it seems to me that is the dividing line that is emerging. It's one that has been ducked for far too long.
On taxation, we need European levels because of our demographics. We will have them, just the two parties will spend lots of time arguing about it as always. The energy bills is a perfect example, both parties will broadly do the same but Truss has been in denial about it for 3 months in order to win over the right wingers. Push comes to shove and some things just need to be done.
What both parties will miss is that big investment really is required to maintain public services over the next decade, but it must be done with a view to them being reformed and made more efficient, therefore lowering costs in future, rather than simply making them bigger and more expensive.
I was expecting a car crash and it isn't, but who the hell is going to pay for the energy cap?
We are. All of us. But mainly the young. Hugely unfair.
Yes. This is key. It’s been a fundamental feature of Tory policy, across government, since 2010.
The grandfathering of rights and state entitlements (eg, a non-home owning young person with a LISA on universal credit is fked, relative to a home-owning middle aged claimant on legacy benefits). Student loans increasing the effective tax rate on the young. The replacement of generous pensions with crap DC schemes for new starters. Using housing as a wealth transfer mechanism from the assetless young to the Tory client vote.
Throughout government, they’ve been pursuing a fk the young agenda.
There must come a point where the kids reach braking point, surely?
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
Directly on top of it, I hope. It needs squashing.
The problem with it is it is so cheap - just distilled water and one pill of each drug for all the NHS. Tempting.
And the placebo effect is very real. But could we not think of better lies to tell the subjects ?
No. That's what is genius about it. You can't lie because ethics, apparently, and if you write aqua et sucris on the label people will just google it. homeopathy is the only way of squaring this circle.
One of the best exchanges I’ve read on here in ages. First decent argument I’ve read for homeopathy. Thanks!
Pleasure
There's another one: an NHS homeopath is more likely than a freelance nutter 1. To recognise symptoms of e.g. cancer 2. To recommend a non homeopathic response to them.
The dividing lines are very sharp. This is good. The UK (actually, England) needs to decide whether it wants to be America or Europe.
That's what I was thinking after her short introductory speech. Whatever you think about her plans, and my views aren't good, after Johnson she at least brings some sort of clarity to things, which, in the short term at least, almost feels like some kind of a relief from the wandering Johnsonian opportunism and void.
I could not agree more. I watched the exchange, and it was far more informative and, therefore, consequential than anything we got with Johnson. There is no gaping divide in personality, background or life experience between Truss and Starner. That may end up improving the quality of political discourse, which cannot be anything other than positive (and which, I think, will also favour him (but I would say that)).
Yes, I've not been part of the "Truss is rubbish" mob and I like her manner (though naturally not her direction of policy). I think British politics will benefit from having two adults debating instead of an adult and a comedian.
I was expecting a car crash and it isn't, but who the hell is going to pay for the energy cap?
We are. All of us. But mainly the young. Hugely unfair.
I suspect the rejection of the windfall tax narrative will cause her problems as time goes by.
Starmer set out his stall for the future. Truss was far better than anticipated, but then Starmer was also a revelation. I think he used to be bamboozled and frustrated by Johnson's absolute lies.
She may have ruled out a windfall tax, but she has not ruled out a new energy firms contribution levy......
That was a really good first PMQs for Liz Truss, she was clear in her answers even when she was disagreeing with the point of the questioner. Clear water between the parties on the energy issue.
I think Truss needs to be smarter than simply ruling out a windfall tax. A scheme where the government effectively takes a (large) stake in domestic electricity generation in return for the £150bn subsidy is what I'd look at. Just as the state took a stake in the banks that were bailed out, the state should own part of the assets here as well until such time as the subsidy is effectively paid off and the companies are able to buy themselves out of state ownership.
Right now all we have is a £150bn transfer of money from the state to the private sector who are effectively getting free money to invest in new renewable energy generation.
Some of that total is irrecoverable, even in that manner, but you're absolutely right that we shouldn't nationalise the losses and leave the private sector profits untouched.
Yes, a fair proportion of the total will be paid to the likes of Qatar which we won't get back. However, we could easily grab 49% of SSE and other domestic producers of electricity and as dividends are paid out from electricity generation the holding can be reduced.
That was a really good first PMQs for Liz Truss, she was clear in her answers even when she was disagreeing with the point of the questioner. Clear water between the parties on the energy issue.
Yes, and several of the questions from the SNP and Labour backbenchers came off as downright rude
Mr. Dyed, it's public money being used to cut the price for everyone, including the very wealthiest.
Racking up perhaps £90bn of debt with half of it for those in the upper half of wealth is not something I can unequivocally support. And I don't support Labour's similarly broad brush approach.
Then no cap at all and we need to subsidise based on income - a very costly approach. And dont forget the cap is based on usage, not income. Large, poor families use much more. And so where do we cut off assistance? At what levrl do we say £6000 average cap, your bills are £9k as a heavy user (big family), but youre on your own? Its dreadful but necessary imo. Or we are fucked. Properly fucked with 1920s and earlier style poverty, industry on its knees, mass unemployment.
What is the point of closed questions (no. 10 mr Speaker)?
The MP who asks the question can ask a follow-up on the subject of the original question. Most MPs ask *open* questions, normally about what the Prime Minister will be doing that day, which effectively means they can ask a follow-up on any subject, potentially catching out the Prime Minister.
Occasionally, MPs ask *closed* questions (eg will the Prime Minister ban dogs?). This means that all follow-ups must be about banning dogs. Closed questions are used when the MP actually wants an answer to the closed question, which of course the PM has seen in advance, and to the follow-up.
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
She seems to think chiropractors are mainstream.
*blinks*
A UCL chemist should certainly not be sympathetic to the notion of succussation, so good for her if that is so - but chiropractice? (Chiropraxis? Chiropracty?)
Today program today
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
What is the point of closed questions (no. 10 mr Speaker)?
The MP who asks the question can ask a follow-up on the subject of the original question. Most MPs ask *open* questions, normally about what the Prime Minister will be doing that day, which effectively means they can ask a follow-up on any subject, potentially catching out the Prime Minister.
Occasionally, MPs ask *closed* questions (eg will the Prime Minister ban dogs?). This means that all follow-ups must be about banning dogs. Closed questions are used when the MP actually wants an answer to the closed question, which of course the PM has seen in advance, and to the follow-up.
Interesting procedural point, thanks! I love procedure.
Reminds me of the inclusion of 'and related purposes' on bills, which (I think) makes it easier for amendments of a broad nature to be included, as the early 2019 GE bill did not include such a phrase, so in addition to being very short itself several attempted amendments were deemed out of order.
I don't mind Coffey being a fat drunk. I do mind her being a Roman Catholic anti abortion bigot. a lot.
Where does she stand on homoeopathy?
She seems to think chiropractors are mainstream.
*blinks*
A UCL chemist should certainly not be sympathetic to the notion of succussation, so good for her if that is so - but chiropractice? (Chiropraxis? Chiropracty?)
Today program today
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
Comments
The level and extent would be a pragmatic rather than a principled decision.
Her opinions and ideology have been entirely self serving, throughout her career. She’ll do what she thinks she has to do to hold on to power, perhaps even more ruthlessly and blatantly than any previous PM.
She’s the ultimate shopping trolley, imo.
It needs squashing.
Therese Coffey on radio 4 just now
‘ I have to remind you Nick that the majority of healthcare is actually delivered through primary care by doctors, dentists and ….chiropractors .’
https://twitter.com/helensuth/status/1567415491257405440
(She's not always right, but she's always worth reading.)
Also FWIW, the Washington Post has a far larger range of opinion writers than the NYT, which is one of the reasons I subscribe to the Post, rather than the Times.
They have come from humble backgrounds and are in positions of influence and power.
That is a good thing. They got there on merit.
Shopping trolleys are in contrast utterly random.
It'll be interesting to see how much she sticks to her guns.
https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1567476593907359746
Harry Cole tweeting that government insiders describe it as “a mess”.
But, it worked for that other prominent CND member, who became a self-serving PM ... Tony Blair.
It is one thing to be a member of Oxford University Liberal Democrats, but another to be President of OULDs and a member of the national executive committee of Liberal Democrat Youth and Students ... and then move so quickly Tory-wards.
Realistically her route to a majority is to restore the Blue Wall and throw enough red meat to partially defend the Red, relying on the long term trend there to hit the brakes and resist on any reversal.
Its not impossible but its a hell of a tough ask. Stopping Labour having a stable governmemt is probably best case scenario - Tories 290ish seats
I expect Truss to get a bounce like most new PMs but would be surprised to see the Tories ahead, especially with Truss having a more rightwing Cabinet even than Boris' and much more of a laissez-faire one
Octopus Energy is not nationalised.
https://thepostmillennial.com/the-washington-post-plans-to-dox-libs-of-tik-tok-in-new-hit-piece-by-taylor-lorenz
I was very pleased with her performance today
But could we not think of better lies to tell the subjects ?
Right now all we have is a £150bn transfer of money from the state to the private sector who are effectively getting free money to invest in new renewable energy generation.
Starmer please explain!
So presumably "excess profits" are anything above that level.
Whitehall source says government is pulling second reading of the bill of rights - describes it as a "total mess" and that it needs a radical overhaul to stop it being vulnerable to multiple amendments
https://mobile.twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1567475876274511876
Raab, incompetent to the last.
You need to accept this and move on 100% with Truss to turn things round
I am not expecting an immediate poll bounce and frankly it is not relevant for me
Russian sources report that Ukrainian forces are using effective NATO style combined arms attacks on their positions and they are totally overwhelmed in some areas.
https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1567474654310277120
Starmer struck the right tone for the day too. The shouty opposition MPs looked foolish.
Hopefully she can put to bed the whole notion of the clown king across the water narrative. She would be wise to let the Standards Committee to do its work and see Johnson recalled. Her premiership will run far smoother without Johnson sniping from the back benches.
"This essentially goes back to the New Right of the 1970s, and the idea that any work is morally improving and good work, with financial reward then roughly being a measure of how good that ( employed ) contribution is."
I am a cynical old bat and my time in the City cured me of any belief in the idea that financial reward is in any sense reflective of how good a person's contribution is.
Incidentally, the first chapter of James Rebanks' book "The Shepherd's Life" is very good indeed on the way that assumptions are made about those who live in a place without ever bothering to really find out who they are and why they are and live as they do, what they contribute and why. It made a deep impact on me when I first read it and I still go back to it from time to time.
to businesses too. Id like to see the government in tandem set up a state provider as a failsafe and so they csn restrict durect propping up of private companies, having somewhere for customers and even staff where appropriate to roll into on failures.
But she's also going to deliver tax cuts immediately. Why?
One other idle thought - her repeated comments about needing to invest to make sure there are more jobs available - we're pretty much at full employment, aren't we.
Otherwise I agree with many - more civil and focused than her predecessor.
Starmer set out his stall for the future. Truss was far better than anticipated, but then Starmer was also a revelation. I think he used to be bamboozled and frustrated by Johnson's absolute lies.
https://smarkets.com/event/42556095/politics/uk/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-next-election
Racking up perhaps £90bn of debt with half of it for those in the upper half of wealth is not something I can unequivocally support. And I don't support Labour's similarly broad brush approach.
What both parties will miss is that big investment really is required to maintain public services over the next decade, but it must be done with a view to them being reformed and made more efficient, therefore lowering costs in future, rather than simply making them bigger and more expensive.
The grandfathering of rights and state entitlements (eg, a non-home owning young person with a LISA on universal credit is fked, relative to a home-owning middle aged claimant on legacy benefits). Student loans increasing the effective tax rate on the young. The replacement of generous pensions with crap DC schemes for new starters. Using housing as a wealth transfer mechanism from the assetless young to the Tory client vote.
Throughout government, they’ve been pursuing a fk the young agenda.
There must come a point where the kids reach braking point, surely?
There's another one: an NHS homeopath is more likely than a freelance nutter 1. To recognise symptoms of e.g. cancer 2. To recommend a non homeopathic response to them.
Its dreadful but necessary imo. Or we are fucked. Properly fucked with 1920s and earlier style poverty, industry on its knees, mass unemployment.
Occasionally, MPs ask *closed* questions (eg will the Prime Minister ban dogs?). This means that all follow-ups must be about banning dogs. Closed questions are used when the MP actually wants an answer to the closed question, which of course the PM has seen in advance, and to the follow-up.
But words are cheap. She needs to follow through.
Reminds me of the inclusion of 'and related purposes' on bills, which (I think) makes it easier for amendments of a broad nature to be included, as the early 2019 GE bill did not include such a phrase, so in addition to being very short itself several attempted amendments were deemed out of order.