Howdy, Stranger!

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

Starmer takes a 15% best PM lead over Truss – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798

    biggles said:

    TimS said:

    biggles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    Dynamo said:

    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dynamo said:

    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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.

    image
    ontent/uploads/2018/11/3F700EF4-A2E0-441E-B556-AEA6042BDF4B-1024x768.jpeg">
    There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
    Anthracite only
    A coal fire in one room, but it would heat the brickwork and lend heat to the whole house.
    Requiring a lot of coal. And in a single-skinned house without central heating it was often necessary to have a fire in the fireplace to keep the walls dry.

    Many can't go back to what they or their parents or grandparents did before central heating because they haven't got a fireplace and chimney and because using for example a 2kW electric bar fire would be horrendously expensive.
    Oh yes, I'm not claiming it was a great
    solution. Just that it wasn't quite as bad as it sounds.
    I grew up in a brick cottage with that arrangement. The "warming the rest of the house" bit was pretty theoretical.
    My Dad would never let the upstairs heating be on “because heat rises”. The effect was similarly theoretical.

    Our smartmeter was reading £6 for the day this evening, which was a bit of a shocker in a summer month. But I think it was a couple of hours of ironing that did it. Non-crease clothes might be the secret to defeating the energy crisis.
    My solution to this problem is to turn down a smart meter. I therefore have no idea what it costs per day.

    Isn't that a bit like trying to diet without weighing yourself?
    Healthiest way to diet. Inch loss, fitness progress etc. are far better measures of progress.
    Well, in my personal experience weighing yourself everyday and taking a moving average is the best option. Keeps you motivated everyday but also doesn't cause depression if you get a weird high measure. I'm a stats guy though.

    Being overweight is harmful even if you're fit, btw. This is a lie that lots of people tell themselves.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,317
    moonshine said:

    Social media rumours that Ukrainian armour is currently racing towards Kupuansk, circa 50km deeper than last night’s front line. Key strategic railhead for feeding the main Russian garrison on the Donbas front in Izyum. Would also imply possibility of encircling thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands west of the Oskil river.

    The rumour is that the Russians have left Kharkiv in the hands of LPR/DPR fighters. I wouldn't be surprised if there were widespread mutinies among their contract soldiers.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,696
    edited September 2022
    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    moonshine said:

    Social media rumours that Ukrainian armour is currently racing towards Kupuansk, circa 50km deeper than last night’s front line. Key strategic railhead for feeding the main Russian garrison on the Donbas front in Izyum. Would also imply possibility of encircling thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands west of the Oskil river.

    https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1567467507665051648?s=46&t=OPxkHknWOLXP88vBt0pttQ

    Tactical analysis and significance of this in this thread
  • Eabhal said:

    biggles said:

    TimS said:

    biggles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    Dynamo said:

    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dynamo said:

    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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.

    image
    ontent/uploads/2018/11/3F700EF4-A2E0-441E-B556-AEA6042BDF4B-1024x768.jpeg">
    There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
    Anthracite only
    A coal fire in one room, but it would heat the brickwork and lend heat to the whole house.
    Requiring a lot of coal. And in a single-skinned house without central heating it was often necessary to have a fire in the fireplace to keep the walls dry.

    Many can't go back to what they or their parents or grandparents did before central heating because they haven't got a fireplace and chimney and because using for example a 2kW electric bar fire would be horrendously expensive.
    Oh yes, I'm not claiming it was a great
    solution. Just that it wasn't quite as bad as it sounds.
    I grew up in a brick cottage with that arrangement. The "warming the rest of the house" bit was pretty theoretical.
    My Dad would never let the upstairs heating be on “because heat rises”. The effect was similarly theoretical.

    Our smartmeter was reading £6 for the day this evening, which was a bit of a shocker in a summer month. But I think it was a couple of hours of ironing that did it. Non-crease clothes might be the secret to defeating the energy crisis.
    My solution to this problem is to turn down a smart meter. I therefore have no idea what it costs per day.

    Isn't that a bit like trying to diet without weighing yourself?
    Healthiest way to diet. Inch loss, fitness progress etc. are far better measures of progress.
    Well, in my personal experience weighing yourself everyday and taking a moving average is the best option. Keeps you motivated everyday but also doesn't cause depression if you get a weird high measure. I'm a stats guy though.

    Being overweight is harmful even if you're fit, btw. This is a lie that lots of people tell themselves.
    Weight is an arbitrary measure. You could have lost weight because you've got dysentery. You could have put on weight due to going to the gym.
  • moonshine said:

    Social media rumours that Ukrainian armour is currently racing towards Kupuansk, circa 50km deeper than last night’s front line. Key strategic railhead for feeding the main Russian garrison on the Donbas front in Izyum. Would also imply possibility of encircling thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands west of the Oskil river.

    The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence also made a cryptic tweet which implied they might take out the Kerch bridge soon.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    Jonathan said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Have we done this?
    HMQ cancels virtual Privy Council meeting.
    Not a good sign at all.

    We should just always be grateful it didn’t happen with the lying clown purporting to represent our collective grief.
    The one thing Truss did today is end any expectations of Johnson returning

    What did I miss, out here in sunny Vermont?
    She was ok at PMQs and scored a draw, thereby wildly exceeding all expectations
    I saw that. A no score draw IMHO
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    edited September 2022

    moonshine said:

    Social media rumours that Ukrainian armour is currently racing towards Kupuansk, circa 50km deeper than last night’s front line. Key strategic railhead for feeding the main Russian garrison on the Donbas front in Izyum. Would also imply possibility of encircling thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands west of the Oskil river.

    The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence also made a cryptic tweet which implied they might take out the Kerch bridge soon.
    Even if they’re not ready to, it’s great psyops to say so. Keeps em guessing and sows chaos in decision making on troop and asset deployment. Crimea is I think the tipping point battle, when it comes that sees Putin finished.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214
    edited September 2022

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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
    As I feared, you didn’t understand the point I was making at all. 🙇‍♀️

    Margaret Thatchers governments used to take about a fifth in their windfall taxes. If Lady Thatcher and Lord Howe were in power today, without a shred of doubt in my mind they would take about a fifth of these profits, that still leaves 4/5ths of pretty astronomical windfall profits, so maybe Lady Thatcher would have taken even more in this particular circumstance.

    Firstly where are you on the maths. Where are you getting £8B from? Just A fifth of £170B is over £30B.

    Secondly the politics. The Thatcher government did not do windfall tax’s wholly for the money but to ensure working people felt their government was on their side in hard times - or at the very least stop the opposition painting them as putting all the payback pain on working families, whilst those rolling in windfall profits did not contribute during hard times.

    I agree with you, opposition parties do try to get away on detail when in opposition hence they only talked six months, and yes, the Libdem and Labour proposal also involves borrowing, also involves higher taxes and higher energy bills in future for everybody as the Truss plan does, but, crucially, by not the same or as much as the Truss plan does. The trap Truss fell in with her dozy performance today is to allow her government to be painted as not on the side of hard working people - whilst the smart and clever Thatcher governments took their one fifth from those making windfall during times working families struggled, to ensure their government could not be painted anti worker like the Truss government will now be painted… despite your best efforts.

    Any part of where I am coming from you don’t understand or is wrong factually or in supposition?

    Your next problem - Truss government is not turning up in parliament on Thursday afternoon with a detailed plan they can share for proper scrutiny, they are not ready yet - they have tabled it not as ministerial statement, just “a statement” they can make and then bugger off, without having to answer questions on the detail. Yes it will still be interesting to hear, but it’s another week goes by without a working plan, that you did promise me we would get sometime this week.
  • moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Social media rumours that Ukrainian armour is currently racing towards Kupuansk, circa 50km deeper than last night’s front line. Key strategic railhead for feeding the main Russian garrison on the Donbas front in Izyum. Would also imply possibility of encircling thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands west of the Oskil river.

    https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1567467507665051648?s=46&t=OPxkHknWOLXP88vBt0pttQ

    Tactical analysis and significance of this in this thread
    Looking good.

    This is, it all seems, turning into a Russian military disaster that will echo down the ages of military history.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    @benrileysmith
    🚨BREAKING: The fracking ban will be scrapped **tomorrow**. Planning requests for new drilling expected within weeks. Major change in UK energy rules.


    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1567617883231993858

    Good.

    Wouldn't expect quick progress though. MaxPB's 18 months seems optimistic to me (if it is viable at all).
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798

    Eabhal said:

    biggles said:

    TimS said:

    biggles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    Dynamo said:

    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dynamo said:

    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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.

    image
    ontent/uploads/2018/11/3F700EF4-A2E0-441E-B556-AEA6042BDF4B-1024x768.jpeg">
    There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
    Anthracite only
    A coal fire in one room, but it would heat the brickwork and lend heat to the whole house.
    Requiring a lot of coal. And in a single-skinned house without central heating it was often necessary to have a fire in the fireplace to keep the walls dry.

    Many can't go back to what they or their parents or grandparents did before central heating because they haven't got a fireplace and chimney and because using for example a 2kW electric bar fire would be horrendously expensive.
    Oh yes, I'm not claiming it was a great
    solution. Just that it wasn't quite as bad as it sounds.
    I grew up in a brick cottage with that arrangement. The "warming the rest of the house" bit was pretty theoretical.
    My Dad would never let the upstairs heating be on “because heat rises”. The effect was similarly theoretical.

    Our smartmeter was reading £6 for the day this evening, which was a bit of a shocker in a summer month. But I think it was a couple of hours of ironing that did it. Non-crease clothes might be the secret to defeating the energy crisis.
    My solution to this problem is to turn down a smart meter. I therefore have no idea what it costs per day.

    Isn't that a bit like trying to diet without weighing yourself?
    Healthiest way to diet. Inch loss, fitness progress etc. are far better measures of progress.
    Well, in my personal experience weighing yourself everyday and taking a moving average is the best option. Keeps you motivated everyday but also doesn't cause depression if you get a weird high measure. I'm a stats guy though.

    Being overweight is harmful even if you're fit, btw. This is a lie that lots of people tell themselves.
    Weight is an arbitrary measure. You could have lost weight because you've got dysentery. You could have put on weight due to going to the gym.
    Hence moving average. And the amount of work you have to do at the gym to put serious muscle weight on is enormous. Serious amounts of protein.

    We have far too many people that have got used to telling themselves that they are a normal weight or making some excuse. For the vast majority, BMI is a decent measure.

    The NHS is in trouble enough just with our demographic profile - we need to avoid ever increasing obesity levels as much as possible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    How would that be monitored? You'd have to dob yourself in.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    How soon until we could be producing meaningful quantities of shale gas?

    12th of Never.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited September 2022

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss can bugger off. With their common sense.
    I want freedom to be a total idiot.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    moonshine said:

    Social media rumours that Ukrainian armour is currently racing towards Kupuansk, circa 50km deeper than last night’s front line. Key strategic railhead for feeding the main Russian garrison on the Donbas front in Izyum. Would also imply possibility of encircling thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands west of the Oskil river.

    The rumour is that the Russians have left Kharkiv in the hands of LPR/DPR fighters. I wouldn't be surprised if there were widespread mutinies among their contract soldiers.
    I've often wondered what cannon fodder think about their role as cannon fodder. Denial or fatalism?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    edited September 2022
    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    They're right on this occasion. 16 degrees is high enough. It's probably unhealthy to have it higher than 19.
  • moonshine said:

    TimS said:

    Barnesian said:

    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?

    Firms who aren't on contract sell their product (in this case electricity) at the market rate. The market rate for electricity being the marginal rate set by yes LNG as it stands.

    If renewable firms which are not on contract rates are making profits then good for them, good that they invested in renewable energy before it was as profitable and this should be and is attracting vast investment into new renewables in this country.

    Attract investment into renewables and we ultimately stop needing LNG or Gas at all, deal with Climate Change, and have cheaper energy as gas falls out of the market price. Win/win/win/win/win. Why would you want to stifle that now?
    As we've discussed, and you acknowledged, it isn't that simple. With greater and greater volume of wind and solar, the problem of unreliability gets worse, not better. This bakes gas into the system. That's why, with vastly more renewables than we had 20 years ago, gas use (afaik) has not declined significantly.
    This is absolute bullshit and I have not acknowledged it. There is no "problem" of unreliability, the energy we generate from wind is used as it stands. Yes there are extraordinarily rare times wind generators are paid not to generate energy, but that is always true for all forms of energy since energy demand peaks and troughs, and it is not a problem.

    You are obsessed about an utter non-issue. Over the coming years we have dramatic and unprecedented amounts of electrical storage coming online too which is an absolute gamechanger.

    The reason gas use hasn't declined significantly is because the even more expensive and dirty coal use dropped out first. Gas use declines after coal use does, but as it stands we aren't generating enough renewables to stop using gas. If we do, then gas use would stop, just as coal has.
    You're quite a poor debater. You did have to acknowledge previously that 'it isn't that simple', and here, you've just acknowledged it again. Indeed, you state that 'unprecedented amounts of electrical storage' will be a 'gamechanger', yet you've insisted up-post that reliability is a total non-issue. So why would the game need to be changed?

    As we discussed, wind providers are currently paid to switch off when the grid is full, or if connectivity can't take the power. With more wind, which will come and go in the same peaks and troughs, accentuating them, this
    issue will not go away. We are nowhere with storage (do you have a source of any ground being broken on this, or just hopeful 'in the future' stuff?), and we're unlikely to make much progress on this whilst the constraint payment system exists.

    THAT is why my statement that it is 'not that simple' is self-evidently true.
    Fossil fuel fans seem obsessed with the idea that renewables must have perfect balance between capacity and output, and must never have any excess capacity. While gas, coal and especially oil power plants frequently stand idle during low demand periods indeed some are built expressly to fire up only during surges.

    Given how cheap especially wind generation now is it makes sense to build multiples of current energy demand so long as there is the space on the sea floor.
    I don't have an issue with excess capacity, but as a taxpayer, I have a huge issue with paying for non-generation of power. There was a 'wind-farm boom' in Scotland precisely because builders of those facilities wanted to benefit from constraint payments. We need to ensure a similar but even bigger issue does not arise if we're going to be
    carpeting the joint with windmills, because otherwise the whole system becomes an unaffordable farce.

    End the constraint payments, then build as many windmills (at sea please) as you like. Providers will then build storage into their schemes as they'll want to be paid.
    Robert can pitch in but my understanding is that the amounts paid to disconnect wind farms during periods of surplus production are so trivial in the grand scheme that it’s not worth wasting more than a moment thinking about.
    https://archive2021.parliament.scot/S5_EconomyJobsFairWork/Inquiries/Renewable_Energy_Foundation-Supplementary_Evidence.pdf

    £72 million in wind constraint payments in the first two months of 2020 is hardly trivial, in any scheme.
    It sounds absolutely trivial.

    For comparison how much was paid to gas and coal in the same months?
    According to this article, gas and coal power stations pay the grid when they need to switch off, not the other way around:

    'Constraint payments to wind farms to reduce output started in 2010. Prior to that, National Grid usually called on gas and coal power stations to reduce electricity output which is the cheaper option for the reason described above. There is a fundamental difference between costs of reducing output between conventional power stations and wind powered generators. If a fossil-fuelled power station reduces output, savings are made on the cost of the fuel which need not be used. As a result of this, fossil-fuelled power stations submit negative bids to the system operator indicating they will pay National Grid a certain sum per MWh if asked to reduce output. Conversely, wind farms do not have fuel costs, but if they are called upon to reduce output, they lose subsidies such as the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC) and (prior to 1 August 2015) the Climate Change Levy Exemption Certificates (referred to as Levy Exemption Certificates, LECs). This, in part, explains why wind generator participants in the Balancing Mechanism submit positive bids to the system operator indicating that they need to be paid by National Grid to reduce output.

    What has become clear since 2010 is that the amount charged by wind farms is very significantly in excess of the value of the subsidies foregone. For example, the average price paid to Scottish wind farms to reduce output in 2011 was £220 per MWh, whereas the lost subsidy is approximately £55 per MWh. The amount paid by conventional plant such as coal and gas was approximately £34 per MWh to reduce output in 2011. Ultimately the cost of balancing electricity is paid by the electricity consumer so this large difference in cost is not in the consumer interest.
    https://www.ref.org.uk/energy-data/notes-on-wind-farm-constraint-payments

    Taking 11 years out of date information from a website known to be dodgy with an agenda? Why am I not surprised?

    2011 data isn't very relevant in 2022, the system has changed completely since then. And you didn't answer my question.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Perhaps they are holding off on a 'do your part' campaign until the government announces in detail its plans, otherwise it looks like they are just expecting the public to manage it all themselves.

    Which might sound harsh, but cutting back on our wastefulness would achieve a lot.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    kle4 said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    How would that be monitored? You'd have to dob yourself in.
    A workable strategy in Switzerland.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    biggles said:

    TimS said:

    biggles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    Dynamo said:

    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dynamo said:

    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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.

    image
    ontent/uploads/2018/11/3F700EF4-A2E0-441E-B556-AEA6042BDF4B-1024x768.jpeg">
    There's something rather lovely about a coal fire. Can you put coal in a wood burning stove? Asking for a friend.
    Anthracite only
    A coal fire in one room, but it would heat the brickwork and lend heat to the whole house.
    Requiring a lot of coal. And in a single-skinned house without central heating it was often necessary to have a fire in the fireplace to keep the walls dry.

    Many can't go back to what they or their parents or grandparents did before central heating because they haven't got a fireplace and chimney and because using for example a 2kW electric bar fire would be horrendously expensive.
    Oh yes, I'm not claiming it was a great
    solution. Just that it wasn't quite as bad as it sounds.
    I grew up in a brick cottage with that arrangement. The "warming the rest of the house" bit was pretty theoretical.
    My Dad would never let the upstairs heating be on “because heat rises”. The effect was similarly theoretical.

    Our smartmeter was reading £6 for the day this evening, which was a bit of a shocker in a summer month. But I think it was a couple of hours of ironing that did it. Non-crease clothes might be the secret to defeating the energy crisis.
    My solution to this problem is to turn down a smart meter. I therefore have no idea what it costs per day.

    Isn't that a bit like trying to diet without weighing yourself?
    Healthiest way to diet. Inch loss, fitness progress etc. are far better measures of progress.
    Well, in my personal experience weighing yourself everyday and taking a moving average is the best option. Keeps you motivated everyday but also doesn't cause depression if you get a weird high measure. I'm a stats guy though.

    Being overweight is harmful even if you're fit, btw. This is a lie that lots of people tell themselves.
    Weight is an arbitrary measure. You could have lost weight because you've got dysentery. You could have put on weight due to going to the gym.
    Hence moving average. And the amount of work you have to do at the gym to put serious muscle weight on is enormous. Serious amounts of protein.

    We have far too many people that have got used to telling themselves that they are a normal weight or making some excuse. For the vast majority, BMI is a decent measure.

    The NHS is in trouble enough just with our demographic profile - we need to avoid ever increasing obesity levels as much as possible.
    Plus there is body type.
    I'm skeletally thin. Or vastly overweight.
    I've pumped iron on a serious basis. Didn't gain muscle.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    To be fair we are a month away from most people’s heating starting to trigger.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Me neither. An easy win.
  • From Putinguy's extremely dodgy source that he linked to:

    The United Kingdom currently has approximately 16 GW of wind power in total, but has plans for over 30 GW by 2020. The fact that substantial constraint payments were already being made with 6 GW of wind power demonstrates that very significant grid expansion will be required to accommodate 30 GW of capacity. However, grid expansion is both expensive and time consuming, and there is a real possibility that constraint payments may rise very significantly in the future.

    For most of us 2020 was in the past, not the distant future.
  • From another forum, dry ice has gone up from £7 a block to £45 a block in a fortnight. Carbon dioxide is needed for beer and food production. It is a by-product of making fertilizers, and a major supplier has closed, citing energy costs, as was reported a week or so back.
    https://www.cityam.com/uk-set-for-another-carbon-dioxide-shortage-as-fertiliser-plant-halts-production-again/

    Last time, the government stepped in. Apparently the largest single buyer of carbon dioxide is the NHS; if so, not intervening might not be the cheapest option.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    From another forum, dry ice has gone up from £7 a block to £45 a block in a fortnight. Carbon dioxide is needed for beer and food production. It is a by-product of making fertilizers, and a major supplier has closed, citing energy costs, as was reported a week or so back.
    https://www.cityam.com/uk-set-for-another-carbon-dioxide-shortage-as-fertiliser-plant-halts-production-again/

    Last time, the government stepped in. Apparently the largest single buyer of carbon dioxide is the NHS; if so, not intervening might not be the cheapest option.

    If prices have gone up sixfold and it’s still not economic to restart the plant, I reckon the firm needs new managers…
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214
    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Me neither. An easy win.
    I can easily answer it. The Tory party today, this government, hate any Nanny state type stuff.

    Do you expect to see the front page of the Telegraph scream for it to be illegal to heat your home above 19 c? Then why are you expecting such anti freedom, anti British pro nanny state 💩 from this government?
  • biggles said:

    From another forum, dry ice has gone up from £7 a block to £45 a block in a fortnight. Carbon dioxide is needed for beer and food production. It is a by-product of making fertilizers, and a major supplier has closed, citing energy costs, as was reported a week or so back.
    https://www.cityam.com/uk-set-for-another-carbon-dioxide-shortage-as-fertiliser-plant-halts-production-again/

    Last time, the government stepped in. Apparently the largest single buyer of carbon dioxide is the NHS; if so, not intervening might not be the cheapest option.

    If prices have gone up sixfold and it’s still not economic to restart the plant, I reckon the firm needs new managers…
    Carbon dioxide is a by-product. The main product is ammonia for fertilizer.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    moonshine said:

    Social media rumours that Ukrainian armour is currently racing towards Kupuansk, circa 50km deeper than last night’s front line. Key strategic railhead for feeding the main Russian garrison on the Donbas front in Izyum. Would also imply possibility of encircling thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands west of the Oskil river.

    I so much hope this is the case, and AIUI the Ukrainian have decent night vision equipment do advance at night, but I would be both suppressed and impreded if they have the logistics to pull this off.



    The rumour is that the Russians have left Kharkiv in the hands of LPR/DPR fighters. I wouldn't be surprised if there were widespread mutinies among their contract soldiers.

    I thought that for the most part LPR/DPR fighters where mostly conscripts. ether way, if the front line is dramatically moved because the LPR?DPR fighters wont fight or are not very good at fighting, then the Russians might start blaming them and in tern become a lot less keen on fighting and dying to defend the LPR/DPR



  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Me neither. An easy win.
    I can easily answer it. The Tory party today, this government, hate any Nanny state type stuff.

    Do you expect to see the front page of the Telegraph scream for it to be illegal to heat your home above 19 c? Then why are you expecting such anti freedom, anti British pro nanny state 💩 from this government?
    But we're at war! (kinda). If I were a Tory PM I'd be salivating at the chance to invoke Churchill and dig for victory.
  • Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Me neither. An easy win.
    I can easily answer it. The Tory party today, this government, hate any Nanny state type stuff.

    Do you expect to see the front page of the Telegraph scream for it to be illegal to heat your home above 19 c? Then why are you expecting such anti freedom, anti British pro nanny state 💩 from this government?
    But we're at war! (kinda). If I were a Tory PM I'd be salivating at the chance to invoke Churchill and dig for victory.
    Especially if (big if) the Russian war effort is on the brink of a humiliating defeat.

    Truss may be a lucky general.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Me neither. An easy win.
    I can easily answer it. The Tory party today, this government, hate any Nanny state type stuff.

    Do you expect to see the front page of the Telegraph scream for it to be illegal to heat your home above 19 c? Then why are you expecting such anti freedom, anti British pro nanny state 💩 from this government?
    Well for one the government tells people what they should do all the time. As for advising them to do something like this, well, in urgent situations this goverment will get very nannyish. Asking people to reduce their heating if they can to save precious supplies and preventing the truly vulnerable from suffering if there are shortages doesn't sound anti-freedom to me - a request is not a demand. Self styled libertarians claim they are the same, but they are just whiny babies.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,949
    edited September 2022
    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    You ask, and Liz Truss delivers. Front page of tomorrow's Times:-

    Ministers will implore public to cut use of power
    ... snip
    The Times has been told that ministers want to work with energy companies on a public information campaign over the winter to encourage people to turn down their thermostats and turn off electrical appliances instead of leaving them on standby.

    The move would represent a significant shift in government policy. Under Boris Johnson, Downing Street repeatedly refused to...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-will-implore-public-to-cut-use-of-power-wpb38bhtk (£££)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    It's Putin's 70th birthday in a month, I wonder if anyone can think of a decent gift for him, since the original plan of 'most of Ukraine' has not worked out. Not sure parts of a few oblasts was what he had in mind for the big occasion.
  • Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Me neither. An easy win.
    I can easily answer it. The Tory party today, this government, hate any Nanny state type stuff.

    Do you expect to see the front page of the Telegraph scream for it to be illegal to heat your home above 19 c? Then why are you expecting such anti freedom, anti British pro nanny state 💩 from this government?
    But we're at war! (kinda). If I were a Tory PM I'd be salivating at the chance to invoke Churchill and dig for victory.
    Especially if (big if) the Russian war effort is on the brink of a humiliating defeat.

    Truss may be a lucky general.
    For all of our sakes, we should hope so.

    Expectations have certainly been set low enough too, it seems.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    You ask, and Liz Truss delivers. Front page of tomorrow's Times:-

    Ministers will implore public to cut use of power
    ... snip
    The Times has been told that ministers want to work with energy companies on a public information campaign over the winter to encourage people to turn down their thermostats and turn off electrical appliances instead of leaving them on standby.

    The move would represent a significant shift in government policy. Under Boris Johnson, Downing Street repeatedly refused to...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-will-implore-public-to-cut-use-of-power-wpb38bhtk (£££)


    If Boris is truly a team player despite having been ousted, there will be lots of things prepared which Truss can announce in a short span of time to show her effectiveness and speed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    I still don't get why we haven't had a big campaign on this.
    Me neither. An easy win.
    I can easily answer it. The Tory party today, this government, hate any Nanny state type stuff.

    Do you expect to see the front page of the Telegraph scream for it to be illegal to heat your home above 19 c? Then why are you expecting such anti freedom, anti British pro nanny state 💩 from this government?
    But we're at war! (kinda). If I were a Tory PM I'd be salivating at the chance to invoke Churchill and dig for victory.
    Especially if (big if) the Russian war effort is on the brink of a humiliating defeat.

    Truss may be a lucky general.
    For all of our sakes, we should hope so.

    Expectations have certainly been set low enough too, it seems.
    In the cautious nature of such pronouncements this does seem positive news.

    US officials said Ukraine was making "slow but meaningful progress" against Russian forces

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62828859
  • Half of Belgorod is left without electricity after what appears to be a Ukrainian attack on its central electricity distribution station

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1567650179112751104
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Most interesting article I've read recently.

    "The Erosion of Deep Literacy
    Adam Garfinkle
    Spring 2020"

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-erosion-of-deep-literacy
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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
    As I feared, you didn’t understand the point I was making at all. 🙇‍♀️

    Margaret Thatchers governments used to take about a fifth in their windfall taxes. If Lady Thatcher and Lord Howe were in power today, without a shred of doubt in my mind they would take about a fifth of these profits, that still leaves 4/5ths of pretty astronomical windfall profits, so maybe Lady Thatcher would have taken even more in this particular circumstance.

    Firstly where are you on the maths. Where are you getting £8B from? Just A fifth of £170B is over £30B.

    Secondly the politics. The Thatcher government did not do windfall tax’s wholly for the money but to ensure working people felt their government was on their side in hard times - or at the very least stop the opposition painting them as putting all the payback pain on working families, whilst those rolling in windfall profits did not contribute during hard times.

    I agree with you, opposition parties do try to get away on detail when in opposition hence they only talked six months, and yes, the Libdem and Labour proposal also involves borrowing, also involves higher taxes and higher energy bills in future for everybody as the Truss plan does, but, crucially, by not the same or as much as the Truss plan does. The trap Truss fell in with her dozy performance today is to allow her government to be painted as not on the side of hard working people - whilst the smart and clever Thatcher governments took their one fifth from those making windfall during times working families struggled, to ensure their government could not be painted anti worker like the Truss government will now be painted… despite your best efforts.

    Any part of where I am coming from you don’t understand or is wrong factually or in supposition?

    Your next problem - Truss government is not turning up in parliament on Thursday afternoon with a detailed plan they can share for proper scrutiny, they are not ready yet - they have tabled it not as ministerial statement, just “a statement” they can make and then bugger off, without having to answer questions on the detail. Yes it will still be interesting to hear, but it’s another week goes by without a working plan, that you did promise me we would get sometime this week.
    A good analysis MoonRabbit.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see the Swiss government is making it illegal to heat homes above 19 deg C (in certain circumstances).

    Bloody Swiss. With their common sense.
    They're right on this occasion. 16 degrees is high enough. It's probably unhealthy to have it higher than 19.
    You are clearly not married to a post menopausal wife.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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
    As I feared, you didn’t understand the point I was making at all. 🙇‍♀️

    Margaret Thatchers governments used to take about a fifth in their windfall taxes. If Lady Thatcher and Lord Howe were in power today, without a shred of doubt in my mind they would take about a fifth of these profits, that still leaves 4/5ths of pretty astronomical windfall profits, so maybe Lady Thatcher would have taken even more in this particular circumstance.

    Firstly where are you on the maths. Where are you getting £8B from? Just A fifth of £170B is over £30B.

    Secondly the politics. The Thatcher government did not do windfall tax’s wholly for the money but to ensure working people felt their government was on their side in hard times - or at the very least stop the opposition painting them as putting all the payback pain on working families, whilst those rolling in windfall profits did not contribute during hard times.

    I agree with you, opposition parties do try to get away on detail when in opposition hence they only talked six months, and yes, the Libdem and Labour proposal also involves borrowing, also involves higher taxes and higher energy bills in future for everybody as the Truss plan does, but, crucially, by not the same or as much as the Truss plan does. The trap Truss fell in with her dozy performance today is to allow her government to be painted as not on the side of hard working people - whilst the smart and clever Thatcher governments took their one fifth from those making windfall during times working families struggled, to ensure their government could not be painted anti worker like the Truss government will now be painted… despite your best efforts.

    Any part of where I am coming from you don’t understand or is wrong factually or in supposition?

    Your next problem - Truss government is not turning up in parliament on Thursday afternoon with a detailed plan they can share for proper scrutiny, they are not ready yet - they have tabled it not as ministerial statement, just “a statement” they can make and then bugger off, without having to answer questions on the detail. Yes it will still be interesting to hear, but it’s another week goes by without a working plan, that you did promise me we would get sometime this week.
    A good analysis MoonRabbit.
    Except the last para is wrong. It is down as a general debate

    https://whatson.parliament.uk/

    and here is what happens in a general debate

    https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/5gy0kf6u/what-happens-in-the-chamber-in-a-general-debate
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    Andy_JS said:

    Most interesting article I've read recently.

    "The Erosion of Deep Literacy
    Adam Garfinkle
    Spring 2020"

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-erosion-of-deep-literacy

    TL;DR
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Ms Truss is due to unveil her proposals to Parliament, opening a general debate in the commons on energy costs.

    https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-to-set-out-plan-to-help-households-and-businesses-with-soaring-energy-costs-12692233
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486
    Are there any PB Tories left?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    edited September 2022
    New Zealand politician Winston Peters has been criticising prime minister Jacinda Ardern, apparently describing her as woke and a danger to democracy.

    The strange thing is that the person who first put Jacinda Ardern into office was none other than Winston Peters himself by agreeing to a coalition in 2017 with his NZ First party.

    https://twitter.com/winstonpeters/status/1516192259183550464
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    edited September 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    New Zealand politician Winston Peters has been criticising prime minister Jacinda Ardern, apparently describing her as woke and a danger to democracy.

    The strange thing is that the person who first put Jacinda Ardern into office was none other than Winston Peters himself by agreeing to a coalition in 2017 with his NZ First party.

    https://twitter.com/winstonpeters/status/1516192259183550464

    Winston Peters is NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.

    Albeit he has been on the political scene since the late 70s, first as a National (ie Tory) MP and heir apparent to controversial 70s/80s PM Robert Muldoon (my avatar), then as leader of his own populist right anti-immigration breakaway party.

    He is also Māori and has traditionally attracted support from elderly conservative both Pakeha (white) and Māori, which adds a fascinating spin to the whole culture war thing.
  • hallo

    Willkommen
    Bienvenue?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    Andy_JS said:

    New Zealand politician Winston Peters has been criticising prime minister Jacinda Ardern, apparently describing her as woke and a danger to democracy.

    The strange thing is that the person who first put Jacinda Ardern into office was none other than Winston Peters himself by agreeing to a coalition in 2017 with his NZ First party.

    https://twitter.com/winstonpeters/status/1516192259183550464

    Winston Peters is NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.

    Albeit he has been on the political scene since the late 70s, first as a National (ie Tory) MP and heir apparent to controversial 70s/80s PM Robert Muldoon (my avatar), then as leader of his own populist right anti-immigration breakaway party.

    He is also Māori and has traditionally attracted support from elderly conservative both Pakeha (white) and Māori, which adds a fascinating spin to the whole culture war thing.
    That’s who your avatar is! I’ve always wondered. Thought it was Dara O’Brain or a 1930’s horror movie star.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    Andy_JS said:

    New Zealand politician Winston Peters has been criticising prime minister Jacinda Ardern, apparently describing her as woke and a danger to democracy.

    The strange thing is that the person who first put Jacinda Ardern into office was none other than Winston Peters himself by agreeing to a coalition in 2017 with his NZ First party.

    https://twitter.com/winstonpeters/status/1516192259183550464

    Winston Peters is NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.

    Albeit he has been on the political scene since the late 70s, first as a National (ie Tory) MP and heir apparent to controversial 70s/80s PM Robert Muldoon (my avatar), then as leader of his own populist right anti-immigration breakaway party.

    He is also Māori and has traditionally attracted support from elderly conservative both Pakeha (white) and Māori, which adds a fascinating spin to the whole culture war thing.
    That’s who your avatar is! I’ve always wondered. Thought it was Dara O’Brain or a 1930’s horror movie star.
    I thought it was Alexiei Sayle!
This discussion has been closed.