If you fall for a joke and thereby make yourself look like a tiny bit of a tit, just admit it
Don’t get all angry and accusatory, or deny it ever happened, because that makes you look like more of a tit. This is a basic life lesson, I would have thought. Because, in the end, it IS just a joke
That is all. Now I am off to watch Vikings Valhalla
I’m getting a BeeGees vibe.
“I started a joke Which started the whole world crying But I didn't see That the joke was on me, oh no
I started to cry Which started the whole world laughing Oh, if I'd only seen That the joke was on me”.
If you fall for a joke and thereby make yourself look like a tiny bit of a tit, just admit it
Don’t get all angry and accusatory, or deny it ever happened, because that makes you look like more of a tit. This is a basic life lesson, I would have thought. Because, in the end, it IS just a joke
That is all. Now I am off to watch Vikings Valhalla
I don’t think anyone did get angry or accusatory. Did I miss that?
Like I said fpt, a good news day all in all. This, and Liz at pmq, and a poke in the eye for Putin from the Ukies, and my Spanish granddaughter getting her UK passport and coming to Durham to study engineering, and I was in the winning team at bowling, and …
Are you a Man United or Everton fan as well?
No, but I do have a ManUtd umbrella for when it rains.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket. To suggest they should is imposing a wealth tax that goes directly into private profit and does not benefit anyone else. Now, thats not to say you cannot recoup that ability to pay more through general taxation. Labours plan is even more regressive, at least the Conservative plan keeps the direct £400 subsidy, helping those paying the least the most (encouraging frugality and broadly helping the poorer a little more)
The upshot is we need the full detail and how it impacts the outlook, bloomberg yesterday suggested it might avoid a UK recession - growth projections then impact the long term debt, interest and thus effect of whatever the final plan is. Hopefully it supports small and medium business who Labour have simply ignored in this.
Taxing the rich more than the poor (however it's done) is progressive, not regressive.
Labour propose a cap freeze and no £400 support. Thats more regressive than £400 support and a slightly higher cap as the latter helps the poorer and lower energy users most with the higher users and wealthier paying a little more
Poorer and lower energy users doesn't follow automatically though, at all. Most of PB appear to have solar panels, insulation and access to open fires. The poor in draughty older properties with larger families tend not to
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket.
How absolutely absurd. There is every reason why a millionaire shouldn't have his bills subsidised by the taxpayer just because someone else is having to be saved by the taxpayer from freezing to death.
I think the difficulty is that time is of the essence, not least because of the Tory summer of self indulgence. Working out a complex means tested system and implementing it in a month is a tall order.
I can’t believe the civil service didn’t present the new PM with a few well worked up options, having engaged with her and Sunak through the summer. They were Cabinet Ministers after all.
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket.
How absolutely absurd. There is every reason why a millionaire shouldn't have his bills subsidised by the taxpayer just because someone else is having to be saved by the taxpayer from freezing to death.
If you freeze a price cap that is the result - the cap is the average usage annual bill. You can't freeze it for some and not others. Its not possible. You could just directly support people up to a certain income bracket but even then everyone is still paying the same price per unit for their energy. And means testing is very £££ expensive
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I agree. Price is a rather blunt instrument to reduce demand, but demand does have to be reduced, and in concert with other countries on the continent. Otherwise we just free up more gas for the EU.
I really don't see much alternative to rationing in some form. Hopefully not the even blunter instrument of rolling blackouts.
"Price is a rather blunt instrument to reduce demand" … "I really don't see much alternative to rationing in some form." Price is an impersonal rationing device that allocates a scarce commodity between users in an optimal fashion, encouraging parsimony and penalising profligacy. But you prefer the arbitrary whim of a politician or bureaucrat to do the job!
The problem of using price as the only way of rationing is that it doesn't take care of those most in need.
I said the other day that actually we are far too extravagant with energy and could probably reduce demand substantially by voluntary means, with relatively minor impact on standards of living, but it may well require some business relief.
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket. To suggest they should is imposing a wealth tax that goes directly into private profit and does not benefit anyone else. Now, thats not to say you cannot recoup that ability to pay more through general taxation. Labours plan is even more regressive, at least the Conservative plan keeps the direct £400 subsidy, helping those paying the least the most (encouraging frugality and broadly helping the poorer a little more)
The upshot is we need the full detail and how it impacts the outlook, bloomberg yesterday suggested it might avoid a UK recession - growth projections then impact the long term debt, interest and thus effect of whatever the final plan is. Hopefully it supports small and medium business who Labour have simply ignored in this.
Taxing the rich more than the poor (however it's done) is progressive, not regressive.
Labour propose a cap freeze and no £400 support. Thats more regressive than £400 support and a slightly higher cap as the latter helps the poorer and lower energy users most with the higher users and wealthier paying a little more
Poorer and lower energy users doesn't follow automatically though, at all. Most of PB appear to have solar panels, insulation and access to open fires. The poor in draughty older properties with larger families tend not to
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
Windfall tax will work well. The extra 200 quid I’m paying each month is going somewhere. The energy companies were making big profits beforehand, they don’t need the extra cash they are getting due to the war. Just get the excess 200 quid back through tax. Job done. Everyone
In a few centuries, President of COP26 will become one of these sinecures, like Lord Privy Seal and Captain of the Honourable Gentlemen-at-Arms, whose original purpose has been long forgotten but which remain permanent features of the political landscape.
This must be the daftest paragraph in the history of sports reporting:
Tattersall handed over the gloves to Tom Kohler-Cadmore, who immediately stumped Josh Bohannon for five. Then the young Yorkshire skipper put himself on to bowl and had Jennings caught at backward point by Coad, whose trousers fell down.
Honestly, I knew Yorkshire were in a mess, but I had no idea they craved this level of exposure!
I watched a lot of it today but I stopped watching by then.
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket. To suggest they should is imposing a wealth tax that goes directly into private profit and does not benefit anyone else. Now, thats not to say you cannot recoup that ability to pay more through general taxation. Labours plan is even more regressive, at least the Conservative plan keeps the direct £400 subsidy, helping those paying the least the most (encouraging frugality and broadly helping the poorer a little more)
The upshot is we need the full detail and how it impacts the outlook, bloomberg yesterday suggested it might avoid a UK recession - growth projections then impact the long term debt, interest and thus effect of whatever the final plan is. Hopefully it supports small and medium business who Labour have simply ignored in this.
Taxing the rich more than the poor (however it's done) is progressive, not regressive.
Labour propose a cap freeze and no £400 support. Thats more regressive than £400 support and a slightly higher cap as the latter helps the poorer and lower energy users most with the higher users and wealthier paying a little more
Poorer and lower energy users doesn't follow automatically though, at all. Most of PB appear to have solar panels, insulation and access to open fires. The poor in draughty older properties with larger families tend not to
Yes, agreed. But in broad brush terms......
You see. I would argue the poor already pay close attention to their usage. They always did. Therefore have less scope for savings by cutting back.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
Windfall tax will work well. The extra 200 quid I’m paying each month is going somewhere. The energy companies were making big profits beforehand, they don’t need the extra cash they are getting due to the war. Just get the excess 200 quid back through tax. Job done. Everyone
Think you somwehat overestimate the amount another windfall tax (cos weve already imposed one) will raise. Unless we are recolonising the gulf and nationalising everything
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket. To suggest they should is imposing a wealth tax that goes directly into private profit and does not benefit anyone else. Now, thats not to say you cannot recoup that ability to pay more through general taxation. Labours plan is even more regressive, at least the Conservative plan keeps the direct £400 subsidy, helping those paying the least the most (encouraging frugality and broadly helping the poorer a little more)
The upshot is we need the full detail and how it impacts the outlook, bloomberg yesterday suggested it might avoid a UK recession - growth projections then impact the long term debt, interest and thus effect of whatever the final plan is. Hopefully it supports small and medium business who Labour have simply ignored in this.
Taxing the rich more than the poor (however it's done) is progressive, not regressive.
Labour propose a cap freeze and no £400 support. Thats more regressive than £400 support and a slightly higher cap as the latter helps the poorer and lower energy users most with the higher users and wealthier paying a little more
Poorer and lower energy users doesn't follow automatically though, at all. Most of PB appear to have solar panels, insulation and access to open fires. The poor in draughty older properties with larger families tend not to
Yes, agreed. But in broad brush terms......
You see. I would argue the poor already pay close attention to their usage. They always did. Therefore have less scope for savings by cutting back.
But gain more % wise via the £400 subsidy labour are planning to remove
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I agree. Price is a rather blunt instrument to reduce demand, but demand does have to be reduced, and in concert with other countries on the continent. Otherwise we just free up more gas for the EU.
I really don't see much alternative to rationing in some form. Hopefully not the even blunter instrument of rolling blackouts.
"Price is a rather blunt instrument to reduce demand" … "I really don't see much alternative to rationing in some form." Price is an impersonal rationing device that allocates a scarce commodity between users in an optimal fashion, encouraging parsimony and penalising profligacy. But you prefer the arbitrary whim of a politician or bureaucrat to do the job!
The problem of using price as the only way of rationing is that it doesn't take care of those most in need.
I said the other day that actually we are far too extravagant with energy and could probably reduce demand substantially by voluntary means, with relatively minor impact on standards of living, but it may well require some business relief.
You need to discipline your thoughts. You are concerned about "those in need", as I am too. That being so, address it directly, not indirectly through the price mechanism, destroying its invaluable allocation properties wrt the scarce resource. The distribution of income bothers you, so advocate and argue for its redistribution but not by smothering market signals and thereby misdirecting the scarce resource to less socially useful consumption.
If you fall for a joke and thereby make yourself look like a tiny bit of a tit, just admit it
Don’t get all angry and accusatory, or deny it ever happened, because that makes you look like more of a tit. This is a basic life lesson, I would have thought. Because, in the end, it IS just a joke
That is all. Now I am off to watch Vikings Valhalla
The joke about having unusual pictures on your laptop from the previous thread?
Then Alentejo black pig cheeks with confit tomatoes - ALSO LOVELY
WHAT IS GOING ON IN PORTUGAL
Love Ox cheek - bet that is lovely. Love black pig too.
This is your most challenging 'Where's Hitler?' yet. Is he under the tomatoes?
You’d better ask @ BartholomewRoberts or @ DougSeal or @ kle4 or @ Foxy, ie the Proud PB Sub 90 IQ ers
if they’re not busy hitting their heads with half bricks they could probably locate Himmler under the Rosemary
The black pork cheek is fucking BRILLIANT, by the way
I know someone who farms black pigs. I'm going to ask if they have the cheeks. I mean obviously the pigs have them, I'm just not sure if they get sold whole or whether they go in the sausages.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I agree. Price is a rather blunt instrument to reduce demand, but demand does have to be reduced, and in concert with other countries on the continent. Otherwise we just free up more gas for the EU.
I really don't see much alternative to rationing in some form. Hopefully not the even blunter instrument of rolling blackouts.
We need to be careful with rolling blackouts. This is not the 1970s. Blacking out data centres could hand over at a stroke much of our computer hosting industry to the United States or Europe. Power cuts to domestic premises could damage WFH and that includes not just posters to PB but doctors conducting virtual appointments, medical monitoring via the "internet of things", all the way down to ministers and civil servants on Zoom calls.
I agree, rolling blackouts are to be avoided for those and other reasons.
Over the next two years, in the crucial post covid economic recovery period, Europe including the UK will have a major drag on growth because of energy prices and shortages. It will be a big advantage for Asia, North America etc.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
I hope there's mass non-payment of inflated bills. F*** the corrupt oligarchy and the banks.
First step: everyone cancel their direct debits. (Those who are naive enough to have any.)
The City won't like it up 'em.
Second step: at a prearranged time, everyone withdraw £100 or however much they can afford, in cash, from their bank accounts.
Polly Toynbee talking about the next f***ing GE reminds me of...guess who? Jeremy Corbyn, who in 1984, during the miners'strike, a mere one year after a GE won by the Tories with a large majority, said that the most important thing to do was to build for a Labour victory in the next election. (I personally heard him do that, from the floor at a meeting in Islington.)
F*** Labourite parliamentarism. No amount of questions in the House will achieve anything.
Can't pay? Won't pay! It's inevitable that some people will suss that that's the way forward.
“Some people” being Russian agitators?
At least Leon knows when he's winding people up. I doubt you know whether you're winding people up or saying what you really think.
But yes, a big wave of people who didn't go to boarding school and who in realising - despite all the brainwashing - that some power actually does lie in their hands can only have been paid by the Kremlin to dare to think in such a fashion.
If you fall for a joke and thereby make yourself look like a tiny bit of a tit, just admit it
Don’t get all angry and accusatory, or deny it ever happened, because that makes you look like more of a tit. This is a basic life lesson, I would have thought. Because, in the end, it IS just a joke
That is all. Now I am off to watch Vikings Valhalla
The joke about having unusual pictures on your laptop from the previous thread?
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket. To suggest they should is imposing a wealth tax that goes directly into private profit and does not benefit anyone else. Now, thats not to say you cannot recoup that ability to pay more through general taxation. Labours plan is even more regressive, at least the Conservative plan keeps the direct £400 subsidy, helping those paying the least the most (encouraging frugality and broadly helping the poorer a little more)
The upshot is we need the full detail and how it impacts the outlook, bloomberg yesterday suggested it might avoid a UK recession - growth projections then impact the long term debt, interest and thus effect of whatever the final plan is. Hopefully it supports small and medium business who Labour have simply ignored in this.
Taxing the rich more than the poor (however it's done) is progressive, not regressive.
Labour propose a cap freeze and no £400 support. Thats more regressive than £400 support and a slightly higher cap as the latter helps the poorer and lower energy users most with the higher users and wealthier paying a little more
Poorer and lower energy users doesn't follow automatically though, at all. Most of PB appear to have solar panels, insulation and access to open fires. The poor in draughty older properties with larger families tend not to
Yes, agreed. But in broad brush terms......
You see. I would argue the poor already pay close attention to their usage. They always did. Therefore have less scope for savings by cutting back.
But gain more % wise via the £400 subsidy labour are planning to remove
I'm afraid there is no ideal solution. All mooted ones have serious drawbacks.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
If it ends up at £2,500 (as is widely mooted), it wouldn't be the worst option, It would encourage many to be more careful (where possible) but those for whom it will be a genuine problem must be helped (I've never argued against that).
I'm not sure I see borrowing as positively as you. That money has to be paid back at some point by someone and the fact of our indebtedness weighs on the value of our currency (thereby affecting what we actually pay for our gas and oil) and rising interest rates impact on how much we have to pay back.
Then Alentejo black pig cheeks with confit tomatoes - ALSO LOVELY
WHAT IS GOING ON IN PORTUGAL
Love Ox cheek - bet that is lovely. Love black pig too.
This is your most challenging 'Where's Hitler?' yet. Is he under the tomatoes?
You’d better ask @ BartholomewRoberts or @ DougSeal or @ kle4 or @ Foxy, ie the Proud PB Sub 90 IQ ers
if they’re not busy hitting their heads with half bricks they could probably locate Himmler under the Rosemary
The black pork cheek is fucking BRILLIANT, by the way
I know someone who farms black pigs. I'm going to ask if they have the cheeks. I mean obviously the pigs have them, I'm just not sure if they get sold whole or whether they go in the sausages.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
Windfall tax will work well. The extra 200 quid I’m paying each month is going somewhere. The energy companies were making big profits beforehand, they don’t need the extra cash they are getting due to the war. Just get the excess 200 quid back through tax. Job done. Everyone
Think you somwehat overestimate the amount another windfall tax (cos weve already imposed one) will raise. Unless we are recolonising the gulf and nationalising everything
So where does my extra 200 quid go? It’s pure excess profit. The costs haven’t gone up.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I agree. Price is a rather blunt instrument to reduce demand, but demand does have to be reduced, and in concert with other countries on the continent. Otherwise we just free up more gas for the EU.
I really don't see much alternative to rationing in some form. Hopefully not the even blunter instrument of rolling blackouts.
We need to be careful with rolling blackouts. This is not the 1970s. Blacking out data centres could hand over at a stroke much of our computer hosting industry to the United States or Europe. Power cuts to domestic premises could damage WFH and that includes not just posters to PB but doctors conducting virtual appointments, medical monitoring via the "internet of things", all the way down to ministers and civil servants on Zoom calls.
I agree, rolling blackouts are to be avoided for those and other reasons.
Over the next two years, in the crucial post covid economic recovery period, Europe including the UK will have a major drag on growth because of energy prices and shortages. It will be a big advantage for Asia, North America etc.
California is very likely to face rolling blackouts this week. They were on the cusp of it last night
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
They had open fires. Plenty of properties don't now. Lots of new builds don't even have chimneys. Mine doesn't.
Truss needs to do two things regarding energy costs to gain support. As well as keeping the cap at current levels, she needs to impose a windfall tax on energy suppliers. The public see the excess profits being made and don’t understand why the energy companies should reap the benefit. It she does both of these, she could receive a significant bounce.
Truss won't, she make clear today ideologically she is very much a free market liberal Thatcherite PM when Starmer said she should impose a windfall tax on energy companies to fund a cap on costs for consumers
I presume she thinks somehow the "Magic Growth Fairy" will bestow its munificence upon us and the increase in debt interest payments and the debasement of our currency can all somehow be wished away by tax cuts.
I'm not entirely convinced - Margaret Thatcher has North Sea Oil receipts and later privatisation receipts.
And gas, too.
Perhaps the other half of tomorrow’s policy announcement is “drill baby, drill”?
I think it will be - at least as much drilling as can be mustered.
As I said earlier, what will be a bit of a masterstroke is if UK gas suppliers have been drafted in with an agreement to step up production significantly, especially if such activity can be put down to them being protected from further raids on their profits. That will be clever politics.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
Windfall tax will work well. The extra 200 quid I’m paying each month is going somewhere. The energy companies were making big profits beforehand, they don’t need the extra cash they are getting due to the war. Just get the excess 200 quid back through tax. Job done. Everyone
Think you somwehat overestimate the amount another windfall tax (cos weve already imposed one) will raise. Unless we are recolonising the gulf and nationalising everything
So where does my extra 200 quid go? It’s pure excess profit. The costs haven’t gone up.
The wholesale price. Its not like bulb said 'lets stick 200 quid on bills for a laugh'
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
There's two types of solution.
There's what we have which means everyone will be helped whether they are huge users of electricity or gas, multi-billion pound organisations or individuals or the very poorest. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it as I said earlier.
Now, for the controversial bit - yes, a lot of people and businesses would struggle to pay the projected increases in gas and electricity bills but that doesn't mean there aren't those who could pay and many others who could pay some part of the increase. This didn't start last week - this has been on the cards for months but the current Government's own self-indulgence has prevented it examining solutions which would mean those who could afford to pay more did so and thereby didn't mean borrowing so much for future generations to have to repay.
No one should freeze to death - of course - but the converse is also true, There are plenty who could pay a little or indeed a lot more but there's no effort to try to get them to do so. It's so much easier to kick the can down the road after months of internal Conservative wrangling has left us without an adequate plan.
At least Labour are trying to mitigate the situation - I agree it's a drop in the ocean if we get well north of £100 billion required to support this scheme.
There is no reason that someone with wealth should pay more per unit for their electricity and gas than they should have to pay double for a chicken in a supermarket. To suggest they should is imposing a wealth tax that goes directly into private profit and does not benefit anyone else. Now, thats not to say you cannot recoup that ability to pay more through general taxation. Labours plan is even more regressive, at least the Conservative plan keeps the direct £400 subsidy, helping those paying the least the most (encouraging frugality and broadly helping the poorer a little more)
The upshot is we need the full detail and how it impacts the outlook, bloomberg yesterday suggested it might avoid a UK recession - growth projections then impact the long term debt, interest and thus effect of whatever the final plan is. Hopefully it supports small and medium business who Labour have simply ignored in this.
Taxing the rich more than the poor (however it's done) is progressive, not regressive.
Labour propose a cap freeze and no £400 support. Thats more regressive than £400 support and a slightly higher cap as the latter helps the poorer and lower energy users most with the higher users and wealthier paying a little more
Poorer and lower energy users doesn't follow automatically though, at all. Most of PB appear to have solar panels, insulation and access to open fires. The poor in draughty older properties with larger families tend not to
Yes, agreed. But in broad brush terms......
You see. I would argue the poor already pay close attention to their usage. They always did. Therefore have less scope for savings by cutting back.
But gain more % wise via the £400 subsidy labour are planning to remove
I'm afraid there is no ideal solution. All mooted ones have serious drawbacks.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
The second one we had for many years. Had two bulbs with a rotating bit of,plastic,over them that attempted to give the impression of a fire.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
I’m in my mid 30s and I just about remember visiting my Great Grandmother and hating being sent out of the sitting room to fetch some toys because she didn’t have central heating and it was the only room in the house that wasn’t ice cold. She lived to a ripe old age but I wouldn’t willingly go back to that feeling.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
Windfall tax will work well. The extra 200 quid I’m paying each month is going somewhere. The energy companies were making big profits beforehand, they don’t need the extra cash they are getting due to the war. Just get the excess 200 quid back through tax. Job done. Everyone
Think you somwehat overestimate the amount another windfall tax (cos weve already imposed one) will raise. Unless we are recolonising the gulf and nationalising everything
So where does my extra 200 quid go? It’s pure excess profit. The costs haven’t gone up.
The costs absolutely have gone up. Half the gas we're importing is coming from Qatar or Norway, so how are you going to tax the Qataris or Norwegians?
When we are having an economic crisis caused by our reliance on unreliable foreign energy supplies, anyone who proposes punitively taxing domestic energy supplies alone in response is distinctly unserious.
My dog Archy is 16 and a half. He had stopped eating his food and been sitting pathetically in the corner. Inevitably we were thinking the time had come. Today we were looking after a friend’s labradoodle who is fed what appears from online research to be the world’s most expensive dog food. They must put caviar drizzled in unicorn tears in the stuff.
Feeding time, in bounds Archy, shoves neighbour’s labradoodle aside, and eats the whole thing before intervention could take place. He’s been strutting around all evening mightily pleased with himself now he’s put a further burden on our already stretched budget this winter with his demand to eat a la carte.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
The second one we had for many years. Had two bulbs with a rotating bit of,plastic,over them that attempted to give the impression of a fire.
My parents had one similar to the bottom one. I can almost smell the burning dust on the bars as they heated up. Only one bar, mind, putting both on was far too extravagant, put another jumper on if you are cold boy!
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
They should read the manufacturer's advice. Often it's not a good idea to, because coal burns hotter than wood. But if they have a decent multi-fuel stove then it would be OK.
It's in poor taste to have the poppies dropping from an instrument of death mid-flight. I mean, the Lancaster bomber looks cool, and I love the floods of poppies installations we saw a few years back, but I don't think they really add to each other here.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
If it ends up at £2,500 (as is widely mooted), it wouldn't be the worst option, It would encourage many to be more careful (where possible) but those for whom it will be a genuine problem must be helped (I've never argued against that).
I'm not sure I see borrowing as positively as you. That money has to be paid back at some point by someone and the fact of our indebtedness weighs on the value of our currency (thereby affecting what we actually pay for our gas and oil) and rising interest rates impact on how much we have to pay back.
Can I just say I am not at all happy with the borrowing but these are as I have said de facto war times when extraordinary measures are needed
The main difference seems to be that the public and even some on here have an unrealistic ambition to pay off these debts through a windfall tax that raises very little in the scheme of things
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
Windfall tax will work well. The extra 200 quid I’m paying each month is going somewhere. The energy companies were making big profits beforehand, they don’t need the extra cash they are getting due to the war. Just get the excess 200 quid back through tax. Job done. Everyone
Think you somwehat overestimate the amount another windfall tax (cos weve already imposed one) will raise. Unless we are recolonising the gulf and nationalising everything
So where does my extra 200 quid go? It’s pure excess profit. The costs haven’t gone up.
The costs absolutely have gone up. Half the gas we're importing is coming from Qatar or Norway, so how are you going to tax the Qataris or Norwegians?
When we are having an economic crisis caused by our reliance on unreliable foreign energy supplies, anyone who proposes punitively taxing domestic foreign supplies alone in response is distinctly unserious.
Yep. Until we have energy security we cant just piss off who we like in random tax raids
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Oh we're energy independent now are we? All our energy comes from the North Sea, does it?
Your money goes to the Qatari government, to Norwegian firms and Norway's government etc
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
They should read the manufacturer's advice. Often it's not a good idea to, because coal burns hotter than wood. But if they have a decent multi-fuel stove then it would be OK.
It's in poor taste to have the poppies dropping from an instrument of death mid-flight. I mean, the Lancaster bomber looks cool, and I love the floods of poppies installations we saw a few years back, but I don't think they really add to each other here.
My dog Archy is 16 and a half. He had stopped eating his food and been sitting pathetically in the corner. Inevitably we were thinking the time had come. Today we were looking after a friend’s labradoodle who is fed what appears from online research to be the world’s most expensive dog food. They must put caviar drizzled in unicorn tears in the stuff.
Feeding time, in bounds Archy, shoves neighbour’s labradoodle aside, and eats the whole thing before intervention could take place. He’s been strutting around all evening mightily pleased with himself now he’s put a further burden on our already stretched budget this winter with his demand to eat a la carte.
One (accidental) policy that seems to have worked the way it was hoped was Rishi’s North Sea windfall tax with an accelerated investment deduction. It has caused several oil companies to bring forward investment.
An energy windfall tax on generators but with investment allowance for capex spending on bringing new renewables and battery storage onstream (there is a very large pipeline of offshore wind projects already with planning permission but not yet built) could raise some money towards a price cap while having a tangible impact on electricity generation within this winter-spring.
I think a bit of a combination of price capping (for business as well as domestic) and allowing the price to rise a bit to encourage energy efficiency, might be a decent balance.
Some targeted subsidies or scrappage schemes for boilers, insulation, rooftop solar etc would have helped but it’s too late now. Should have been done in spring when the writing was already on the wall.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
I see no other choice than borrowing for the next 18 months and indeed it was suggested today that the £2,500 cap will reduce inflation and help interest rates
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
Windfall tax will work well. The extra 200 quid I’m paying each month is going somewhere. The energy companies were making big profits beforehand, they don’t need the extra cash they are getting due to the war. Just get the excess 200 quid back through tax. Job done. Everyone
Think you somwehat overestimate the amount another windfall tax (cos weve already imposed one) will raise. Unless we are recolonising the gulf and nationalising everything
So where does my extra 200 quid go? It’s pure excess profit. The costs haven’t gone up.
You do know the producers already pay high taxes and any windfall tax on top would generate as Starmer confirmed 8 billion as a one off which has already been used in the 37 billion measures to date including the £400 October payment
There is another flaw in labour's proposals in that they are to cancel the much needed £400 grant in October, as even at £2,500 many will be in fuel poverty and need that grant Labour would remove
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
If you fall for a joke and thereby make yourself look like a tiny bit of a tit, just admit it
Don’t get all angry and accusatory, or deny it ever happened, because that makes you look like more of a tit. This is a basic life lesson, I would have thought. Because, in the end, it IS just a joke
That is all. Now I am off to watch Vikings Valhalla
Word to the @leon - your fascist fetish, despite the kidding around, is a little obvious.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
These companies were hugely profitable before gas prices went up. They and the pension funds will be fine if they give me some of my extra 200 quid a month back.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Well actually their costs have gone up substantially. Just no where near as much as their profits.
But the problem you have - the one I referred to when I said my preferred solution was probably unworkable and would destroy the North Sea - is that these companies are international players who have a choice where they spend their exploration and development budgets. The North Sea is already one of the most expensive places in the world to extract oil and gas from and when they make decisions about where they will invest for the next 5 or 10 years we are in competition with Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico and a dozen other places.
This is why I have always attacked the Government for tinkering and continuously changing the tax and regulatory regime here. It has cost us billions in under investment. My view has changed because I think this is such a crisis that we probably have to sacrifice future investment in the North Sea for the sake of immediate relief. But I am under no illusions that that is what will happen. And if you are going to do that then doing it for the sake of a few billion in windfall taxes which will hardly touch the problem is frankly a waste of time.
So you are left with two choices. Go the Truss route which burdens future generations with paying back what we have spent, or go my route (which I am suggesting rather than advocating as it will probably cost me my job) and set a brutal maximum profit level on the companies with all other profits going to the exchequer. And even then I am not sure it will be enough.
It's in poor taste to have the poppies dropping from an instrument of death mid-flight. I mean, the Lancaster bomber looks cool, and I love the floods of poppies installations we saw a few years back, but I don't think they really add to each other here.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
One thing that could be done is to place a tax on gas exports, so make it cheaper for companies to sell their gas on the domestic market. But if we really have no storage, then we have no storage.
It's in poor taste to have the poppies dropping from an instrument of death mid-flight. I mean, the Lancaster bomber looks cool, and I love the floods of poppies installations we saw a few years back, but I don't think they really add to each other here.
The crews of bomber command made one of the biggest sacrifices of WW2. All weapons or military aircraft are "instruments of death", but hey, if you want to insult the memory of those who gave their lives that is up to you. Pathetic Scottish Nationalists probably hate it because the SNP were often Nazi sympathisers. Looking at that video I posted I imagine a very large number of them still are.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
These companies can afford to give me some of my money back. They are not hard up. They are hugely profitable without excess war profits. They should do their bit.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
These companies were hugely profitable before gas prices went up. They and the pension funds will be fine if they give me some of my extra 200 quid a month back.
Actually the company I was contracting for until last year - at the time the largest independent O&G company in the UK was £2.5 billion in debt. and that was all off the back of one failed development. People really don't have the first clue about how much it costs to provide their oil and gas.
My dog Archy is 16 and a half. He had stopped eating his food and been sitting pathetically in the corner. Inevitably we were thinking the time had come. Today we were looking after a friend’s labradoodle who is fed what appears from online research to be the world’s most expensive dog food. They must put caviar drizzled in unicorn tears in the stuff.
Feeding time, in bounds Archy, shoves neighbour’s labradoodle aside, and eats the whole thing before intervention could take place. He’s been strutting around all evening mightily pleased with himself now he’s put a further burden on our already stretched budget this winter with his demand to eat a la carte.
Nice story, and more defensible than my mother's cat, who developed an addiction to roast chicken from Harrods - no other chicken was acceptable.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
If it is multi fuel, which I think they generally are. All mine are although I have never put coal in. I object to buying fuel for it when I can get endless wood for free.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
These companies were hugely profitable before gas prices went up. They and the pension funds will be fine if they give me some of my extra 200 quid a month back.
I would like some of my money back from the money that the last Labour government unnecessarily splurged on public sector pensions, particularly GPs, but it's not going to happen.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
These companies can afford to give me some of my money back. They are not hard up. They are hugely profitable without excess war profits. They should do their bit.
Like I said fpt, a good news day all in all. This, and Liz at pmq, and a poke in the eye for Putin from the Ukies, and my Spanish granddaughter getting her UK passport and coming to Durham to study engineering, and I was in the winning team at bowling, and …
I’m afraid crude at $82/barrel is not a good sign for the economy.
We’re very likely headed into a global recession. Mild, or severe? Short and sharp or prolonged? Those are the key questions…
It's in poor taste to have the poppies dropping from an instrument of death mid-flight. I mean, the Lancaster bomber looks cool, and I love the floods of poppies installations we saw a few years back, but I don't think they really add to each other here.
Not long ago I was in Hamburg, and there they have a very moving memorial in the bombed out St Nicolai Kirche, destroyed in the firebombing of July 1943. About 38 000 people died in what was amongst the most deadly air raids of the war.
The eye witness accounts were awfully haunting, but it was remarkably evenly handed, with pieces on the Nazi bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry, to the Jews whose houses were distributed to the bombed out, and even to the RAF crews involved.
Well actually their costs have gone up substantially. Just no where near as much as their profits.
But the problem you have - the one I referred to when I said my preferred solution was probably unworkable and would destroy the North Sea - is that these companies are international players who have a choice where they spend their exploration and development budgets. The North Sea is already one of the most expensive places in the world to extract oil and gas from and when they make decisions about where they will invest for the next 5 or 10 years we are in competition with Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico and a dozen other places.
This is why I have always attacked the Government for tinkering and continuously changing the tax and regulatory regime here. It has cost us billions in under investment. My view has changed because I think this is such a crisis that we probably have to sacrifice future investment in the North Sea for the sake of immediate relief. But I am under no illusions that that is what will happen. And if you are going to do that then doing it for the sake of a few billion in windfall taxes which will hardly touch the problem is frankly a waste of time.
So you are left with two choices. Go the Truss route which burdens future generations with paying back what we have spent, or go my route (which I am suggesting rather than advocating as it will probably cost me my job) and set a brutal maximum profit level on the companies with all other profits going to the exchequer. And even then I am not sure it will be enough.
I prefer your solurtion too, for the same reason. And it's not as though the North Sea reserves will evaporate if investment slackens off for a couple of years. 10 years from now, they reserves will probably be worth more than now even in real terms.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
These companies can afford to give me some of my money back. They are not hard up. They are hugely profitable without excess war profits. They should do their bit.
Oh dear, you really don't understand commerce. Another reason why business studies should be a compulsory subject in school.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
These companies can afford to give me some of my money back. They are not hard up. They are hugely profitable without excess war profits. They should do their bit.
They will be doing so, there already exists Corporation Tax and other taxes to get taxes from profitable companies.
The issue we have is insufficient domestic energy has left us critically exposed to global market turmoil. Responding to that by suppressing further investment in domestic energy generation is cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
These companies were hugely profitable before gas prices went up. They and the pension funds will be fine if they give me some of my extra 200 quid a month back.
I would like some of my money back from the money that the last Labour government unnecessarily splurged on public sector pensions, particularly GPs, but it's not going to happen.
If you don’t the taxpayer footing the bill for things you must really hate the Truss plan. Not only will the taxpayer foot the bill our kids will be paying the interest.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
Before central heating most people didn't freeze to death during the winter. How did they manage? Just curious.
Many had coal fires or electric bar fires, usually in one room.
Does this count as the first verified sighting of 2022 poppywankerism?
#verynormalcountry
Sorry to piss on your parade but perhaps you should find out some facts before jumping in.
The monument, which will go up beside the A46 between Newark and Lincoln - if they can raise the last £180,000 they need to finish it - will not have poppies dropping out of the bottom of it. That picture was done as a mock up by a private individual as a suggestion to the scheme about how it could look on Remembrance Day anniversaries if they thought it a good idea. The monument itself will be the Lancaster on its own supported on a steel structure.
I know this because I was one of the archaeologists doing the excavations in advance of construction (there is an Iron Age pit alignment running across the site) and have helped with fund raising for the project.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
These companies can afford to give me some of my money back. They are not hard up. They are hugely profitable without excess war profits. They should do their bit.
They will be doing so, there already exists Corporation Tax and other taxes to get taxes from profitable companies.
The issue we have is insufficient domestic energy has left us critically exposed to global market turmoil. Responding to that by suppressing further investment in domestic energy generation is cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
But that’s complete rubbish. We are talking about excess profits generated from the unique situation of the war. The underlying business is unaffected.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
These companies were hugely profitable before gas prices went up. They and the pension funds will be fine if they give me some of my extra 200 quid a month back.
I would like some of my money back from the money that the last Labour government unnecessarily splurged on public sector pensions, particularly GPs, but it's not going to happen.
If you don’t the taxpayer footing the bill for things you must really hate the Truss plan. Not only will the taxpayer foot the bill our kids will be paying the interest.
No shit Sherlock, all taxes come from taxpayers.
If you don't want taxpayers footing the bill, don't have government expenditure. You wanted expenditure, then it has to come from taxpayers.
Like I said fpt, a good news day all in all. This, and Liz at pmq, and a poke in the eye for Putin from the Ukies, and my Spanish granddaughter getting her UK passport and coming to Durham to study engineering, and I was in the winning team at bowling, and …
I’m afraid crude at $82/barrel is not a good sign for the economy.
We’re very likely headed into a global recession. Mild, or severe? Short and sharp or prolonged? Those are the key questions…
Do we know what's behind the fall in oil price?
Drop in demand, maybe form china incres in supply? if so from where, Iran? expectation of change e.g. G7 Price cap on Russian oil?
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
These companies can afford to give me some of my money back. They are not hard up. They are hugely profitable without excess war profits. They should do their bit.
They will be doing so, there already exists Corporation Tax and other taxes to get taxes from profitable companies.
The issue we have is insufficient domestic energy has left us critically exposed to global market turmoil. Responding to that by suppressing further investment in domestic energy generation is cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
But that’s complete rubbish. We are talking about excess profits generated from the unique situation of the war. The underlying business is unaffected.
The underlying business is not remotely unaffected. And again for the hard of understanding the profits are going to the Qataris etc
Do you want the UK to be free from having to rely upon the Qataris, or more exposed to them?
I do think someone needs to mak a documentary on Oxford University in the mid-late 80s 'golden' age. Boris Johnson, Frank Luntz, Niall Ferguson, David Cameron, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, JRM, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Simon Stevens, Keir Starmer, David Miliband and I'm sure countless others were all there.
Simon Kuper has written a book about it but from the reviews he appears obsessed with the Brexit side of things. However he does suggest that the political right succeeds by engaging fully with the Oxford Union whereas the leftists are busy out campaigning and don't learn the same debating skills. I don't like his conclusion that Oxbridge be turned into post graduate colleges. Seems like he's needlessly trying to share the blame with Cambridge who as far as I can see are entirely blameless.
Search for the Channel 4 dramadoc When Boris Met Dave.
It's in poor taste to have the poppies dropping from an instrument of death mid-flight. I mean, the Lancaster bomber looks cool, and I love the floods of poppies installations we saw a few years back, but I don't think they really add to each other here.
The crews of bomber command made one of the biggest sacrifices of WW2. All weapons or military aircraft are "instruments of death", but hey, if you want to insult the memory of those who gave their lives that is up to you. Pathetic Scottish Nationalists probably hate it because the SNP were often Nazi sympathisers. Looking at that video I posted I imagine a very large number of them still are.
I don't believe that is what I've done. I am not disparaging the bravery and sacrifice of those crews just because I have failed to admire a piece of public art that has been erected in their name. The emblem of the poppy is used to remember the fallen of the world wars, but there's a dignified and quite important symbolical separation between the presence of the poppy and the heat of warfare. This feels inapposite. However, if others draw inspiration and comfort from it, that's fine.
I can't speak for SNP supporters because I am not one. Many would indeed reflexively dislike any commemoration of WW2, probably not because they are Nazi sympathisers, but because they're not comfortable with celebrating a period marked by national unity in the face of common challenges. However, I don't think criticism of this particular sculpture can be put down just to that.
I haven't watched the video btw, I'm not interested in seeing nasty Nats at play.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
These companies were hugely profitable before gas prices went up. They and the pension funds will be fine if they give me some of my extra 200 quid a month back.
I would like some of my money back from the money that the last Labour government unnecessarily splurged on public sector pensions, particularly GPs, but it's not going to happen.
If you don’t the taxpayer footing the bill for things you must really hate the Truss plan. Not only will the taxpayer foot the bill our kids will be paying the interest.
Even with Strarmer windfall tax he would still need 100 billion plus so borrowing is inevitable
It seems to me that the biggest windfall winners are the nuclear and renewable suppliers who are getting much higher electricity prices yet their cost base hasn't changed at all. Why are we focusing just on oil and gas producers?
The Ofgem price cap is designed to give the marginal energy supplier buying gas on the open market a 1.9% return. But that is only about 5-10% of UK energy supplies. (Gas is about 40% of the energy mix and only a sixth of it is LNG bought on the open market). So all the other electricity suppliers shelter under this high cap and make a fortune.
Surely it would be better to freeze prices and subsidise the purchase of gas on the open market - or don't subsidise it at all and let 5-10% of UK electricity close down temporarily as uneconomic and ration a bit?
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Or to companies from Norway or Qatar. Should we invade or just send a note asking nicely? We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
We are currently exporting domestic gas because we lack storage. Tax that as well. By your argument a windfall tax pays for at least half the excess costs.
We import 6x what we export.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
These companies can afford to give me some of my money back. They are not hard up. They are hugely profitable without excess war profits. They should do their bit.
They will be doing so, there already exists Corporation Tax and other taxes to get taxes from profitable companies.
The issue we have is insufficient domestic energy has left us critically exposed to global market turmoil. Responding to that by suppressing further investment in domestic energy generation is cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
And within a year we get Labour saying its a DISGRACE we havent attracted investment in the energy industry. Chancers always.
Does this count as the first verified sighting of 2022 poppywankerism?
#verynormalcountry
Sorry to piss on your parade but perhaps you should find out some facts before jumping in.
The monument, which will go up beside the A46 between Newark and Lincoln - if they can raise the last £180,000 they need to finish it - will not have poppies dropping out of the bottom of it. That picture was done as a mock up by a private individual as a suggestion to the scheme about how it could look on Remembrance Day anniversaries if they thought it a good idea. The monument itself will be the Lancaster on its own supported on a steel structure.
I know this because I was one of the archaeologists doing the excavations in advance of construction (there is an Iron Age pit alignment running across the site) and have helped with fund raising for the project.
I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.
I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.
So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.
Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.
It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.
There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.
To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.
“Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”
I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.
The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.
I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.
Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.
It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.
“I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Not at all. The windfall profits relate directly to the the extra money we all pay.
They don't. At all.
Of course they do. Where does the extra 200 quid I pay each month go? It goes to the firm that tak s gas out of the North Sea. Since their costs haven’t gone up, it pure profit on top of the profits they already made. They don’t need it.
Who do you think gets those profits, pray? Do you imagine it is some greedy fat bloke with a bald head and a white cat on his lap? No, it is mainly pension funds. In the real world not inhabited by those who don't have to not understand business, profits are taken when margins change. No company would say, "oh no, we can't possibly make any more money, please take it back" anymore than those in the public sector fret about how much more pension they get than everyone else. "Oh, no I can't possibly have more pension", says Dr. Smith, "that really wouldn't be fair".
These companies were hugely profitable before gas prices went up. They and the pension funds will be fine if they give me some of my extra 200 quid a month back.
I would like some of my money back from the money that the last Labour government unnecessarily splurged on public sector pensions, particularly GPs, but it's not going to happen.
If you don’t the taxpayer footing the bill for things you must really hate the Truss plan. Not only will the taxpayer foot the bill our kids will be paying the interest.
Even with Strarmer windfall tax he would still need 100 billion plus so borrowing is inevitable
So where does the 100 billion extra we would all pay in bills disappear to?
It seems to me that the biggest windfall winners are the nuclear and renewable suppliers who are getting much higher electricity prices yet their cost base hasn't changed at all. Why are we focusing just on oil and gas producers?
The Ofgem price cap is designed to give the marginal energy supplier buying gas on the open market a 1.9% return. But that is only about 5-10% of UK energy supplies. (Gas is about 40% of the energy mix and only a sixth of it is LNG bought on the open market). So all the other electricity suppliers shelter under this high cap and make a fortune.
Surely it would be better to freeze prices and subsidise the purchase of gas on the open market - or don't subsidise it at all and let 5-10% of UK electricity close down temporarily as uneconomic and ration a bit?
I believe that the German windfall tax announced the other day will include renewable energy companies for that very reason.
It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant
Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out
I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention
It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea
I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
The CEO of Scottish Power said at the weekend his view was the energy price cap would cost a "conservative £100 billion" and many analysts think it will be a) much more than that and b) especially if it needs to be maintained throughout 2023.
My objection is it is all being thrown onto future generations in the form of borrowing which will mean higher debt interest repayments. Do you think that's sensible?
My second objection is it doesn't encourage anyone to use less gas or electricity. Why should they? The Government will carry on paying the excess.
Wrong. Mistake I was making for a long time, mind. Price cap of 2,500 means max price per unit such that the average bill will be 2,500. If you burn a million units at the capped price per unit, say fsoe 52p per kwh, you will still pay £520,000.
Does this count as the first verified sighting of 2022 poppywankerism?
#verynormalcountry
Sorry to piss on your parade but perhaps you should find out some facts before jumping in.
The monument, which will go up beside the A46 between Newark and Lincoln - if they can raise the last £180,000 they need to finish it - will not have poppies dropping out of the bottom of it. That picture was done as a mock up by a private individual as a suggestion to the scheme about how it could look on Remembrance Day anniversaries if they thought it a good idea. The monument itself will be the Lancaster on its own supported on a steel structure.
I know this because I was one of the archaeologists doing the excavations in advance of construction (there is an Iron Age pit alignment running across the site) and have helped with fund raising for the project.
Who’s particular parade are you pissing on? If someone mocks up a version with a Lancaster dropping poppies from its bomb bays and it pops up on Facebook from something called ‘British Updates’, feel free to argue that it’s not a prima facie case of poppy wankersism.
Anyway, Nige thinks that mock up looks stunning, perhaps it’s at him you should be directing your inchoate outrage.
Comments
“I started a joke
Which started the whole world crying
But I didn't see
That the joke was on me, oh no
I started to cry
Which started the whole world laughing
Oh, if I'd only seen
That the joke was on me”.
Sometimes these songs just get into one’s head.
So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.
I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷♀️
Most of PB appear to have solar panels, insulation and access to open fires.
The poor in draughty older properties with larger families tend not to
The cap at £2,500 is twice last years and many people will struggle even at this cap and targeted help will be needed
I do not like the universal nature of the scheme but it probably is the quickest and most direct way to provide the support though I expect big businesses will be required to cancel dividends to shareholders during the length of the scheme
I believe we need a mature and honest debate including the role of a windfall tax and amount that could be raised from it but this is de facto war time with all the consequences that flow from it
In an ideal world I would like Truss and Starmer to get together and put aside politics and govern in the national interest and include the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and NI
A chance of regaining some honour at least.
I said the other day that actually we are far too extravagant with energy and could probably reduce demand substantially by voluntary means, with relatively minor impact on standards of living, but it may well require some business relief.
#verynormalcountry
Over the next two years, in the crucial post covid economic recovery period, Europe including the UK will have a major drag on growth because of energy prices and shortages. It will be a big advantage for Asia, North America etc.
But yes, a big wave of people who didn't go to boarding school and who in realising - despite all the brainwashing - that some power actually does lie in their hands can only have been paid by the Kremlin to dare to think in such a fashion.
All mooted ones have serious drawbacks.
I'm not sure I see borrowing as positively as you. That money has to be paid back at some point by someone and the fact of our indebtedness weighs on the value of our currency (thereby affecting what we actually pay for our gas and oil) and rising interest rates impact on how much we have to pay back.
To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs
Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400
The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
Plenty of properties don't now.
Lots of new builds don't even have chimneys. Mine doesn't.
As I said earlier, what will be a bit of a masterstroke is if UK gas suppliers have been drafted in with an agreement to step up production significantly, especially if such activity can be put down to them being protected from further raids on their profits. That will be clever politics.
This is real wankerism, Scot Nat/fascist style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF87Nd5ghZQ
When we are having an economic crisis caused by our reliance on unreliable foreign energy supplies, anyone who proposes punitively taxing domestic energy supplies alone in response is distinctly unserious.
Feeding time, in bounds Archy, shoves neighbour’s labradoodle aside, and eats the whole thing before intervention could take place. He’s been strutting around all evening mightily pleased with himself now he’s put a further burden on our already stretched budget this winter with his demand to eat a la carte.
The main difference seems to be that the public and even some on here have an unrealistic ambition to pay off these debts through a windfall tax that raises very little in the scheme of things
Your money goes to the Qatari government, to Norwegian firms and Norway's government etc
How are you going to windfall tax that?
Or perhaps, a Doug's life!
An energy windfall tax on generators but with investment allowance for capex spending on bringing new renewables and battery storage onstream (there is a very large pipeline of offshore wind projects already with planning permission but not yet built) could raise some money towards a price cap while having a tangible impact on electricity generation within this winter-spring.
I think a bit of a combination of price capping (for business as well as domestic) and allowing the price to rise a bit to encourage energy efficiency, might be a decent balance.
Some targeted subsidies or scrappage schemes for boilers, insulation, rooftop solar etc would have helped but it’s too late now. Should have been done in spring when the writing was already on the wall.
There is another flaw in labour's proposals in that they are to cancel the much needed £400 grant in October, as even at £2,500 many will be in fuel poverty and need that grant Labour would remove
We have already imposed a windfall tax on those companies we can get some back from.
But the problem you have - the one I referred to when I said my preferred solution was probably unworkable and would destroy the North Sea - is that these companies are international players who have a choice where they spend their exploration and development budgets. The North Sea is already one of the most expensive places in the world to extract oil and gas from and when they make decisions about where they will invest for the next 5 or 10 years we are in competition with Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico and a dozen other places.
This is why I have always attacked the Government for tinkering and continuously changing the tax and regulatory regime here. It has cost us billions in under investment. My view has changed because I think this is such a crisis that we probably have to sacrifice future investment in the North Sea for the sake of immediate relief. But I am under no illusions that that is what will happen. And if you are going to do that then doing it for the sake of a few billion in windfall taxes which will hardly touch the problem is frankly a waste of time.
So you are left with two choices. Go the Truss route which burdens future generations with paying back what we have spent, or go my route (which I am suggesting rather than advocating as it will probably cost me my job) and set a brutal maximum profit level on the companies with all other profits going to the exchequer. And even then I am not sure it will be enough.
So your solution to us facing a shortfall in domestic energy is to deprive the profits of domestic energy generators while leaving us even more exposed to foreign energy market turmoil than we are already? 🤦♂️
We’re very likely headed into a global recession. Mild, or severe? Short and sharp or prolonged? Those are the key questions…
The eye witness accounts were awfully haunting, but it was remarkably evenly handed, with pieces on the Nazi bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry, to the Jews whose houses were distributed to the bombed out, and even to the RAF crews involved.
The issue we have is insufficient domestic energy has left us critically exposed to global market turmoil. Responding to that by suppressing further investment in domestic energy generation is cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
The monument, which will go up beside the A46 between Newark and Lincoln - if they can raise the last £180,000 they need to finish it - will not have poppies dropping out of the bottom of it. That picture was done as a mock up by a private individual as a suggestion to the scheme about how it could look on Remembrance Day anniversaries if they thought it a good idea. The monument itself will be the Lancaster on its own supported on a steel structure.
I know this because I was one of the archaeologists doing the excavations in advance of construction (there is an Iron Age pit alignment running across the site) and have helped with fund raising for the project.
If you don't want taxpayers footing the bill, don't have government expenditure. You wanted expenditure, then it has to come from taxpayers.
Drop in demand, maybe form china
incres in supply? if so from where, Iran?
expectation of change e.g. G7 Price cap on Russian oil?
Do you want the UK to be free from having to rely upon the Qataris, or more exposed to them?
I can't speak for SNP supporters because I am not one. Many would indeed reflexively dislike any commemoration of WW2, probably not because they are Nazi sympathisers, but because they're not comfortable with celebrating a period marked by national unity in the face of common challenges. However, I don't think criticism of this particular sculpture can be put down just to that.
I haven't watched the video btw, I'm not interested in seeing nasty Nats at play.
The Ofgem price cap is designed to give the marginal energy supplier buying gas on the open market a 1.9% return. But that is only about 5-10% of UK energy supplies. (Gas is about 40% of the energy mix and only a sixth of it is LNG bought on the open market). So all the other electricity suppliers shelter under this high cap and make a fortune.
Surely it would be better to freeze prices and subsidise the purchase of gas on the open market - or don't subsidise it at all and let 5-10% of UK electricity close down temporarily as uneconomic and ration a bit?
Chancers always.
Anyway, Nige thinks that mock up looks stunning, perhaps it’s at him you should be directing your inchoate outrage.