Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Correct as in legal, sure. Do I believe their UK operations are such that they should be receiving tax rebates over a 5 year period? No, much more likely they are gaming the system.
We are way too accepting of mega business, including Amazon, Facebook, Google etc paying far less tax than SMEs and even bigger domestic companies are paying. It is just unfair and pushes up taxes for everyone else.
BP and Shell is a portion of nearly everyones pension fund savings (except those who have been in far more generous public sector pension schemes ) - I wonder what the polling would be on extra windfall taxes if it was phrased - shoudl we tax your private pension pot now to slightly fund the gas price subsidy? What would be the reaction if public sector workers were told their pension rights will be arbitrarily reduced to pay for the gas subsidy?
That's fine, except that not everyone has pension assets...
Ultimately, the money transfers go from consumers of energy to investors in firms "making" energy. Everything else is damping.
If we want to soften the immediate blow (and we need to) the money for this comes from present us or future us, or some subset thereof. And future us is a bit cheeky, since it includes those who won't benefit. (Actual Thatcher understood this.)
There's no painless way of doing this, which is a problem for whichever party is left hiding the baby. The government still has a duty to get it as right as they can, and they arguably haven't.
The government is throwing more than £100,000,000,000 at the problem. How much more should be spent by future taxpayers?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Politically, I think Truss is on a loser in this argument (and Moonshine too). But leaving party politics aside for a moment, isn't the position different from, say, the semiconductor industry, where semiconductors not manufactured in 2022 are never going to magically reappear later? The gas reserves are sitting under the North Sea and have been there basically forever. At some point, we will want to extract them. Is it not perfectly viable to take profits in a time of financial emergency and accept that this will discourage investment so that there will be a price in, say, 2026-28? If all the companies push off, then there will be a case for a national extraction company doing the job in, say, 2029, or simply lowering the windfall tax in a couple of years to bring investment back in. The gas isn't going anywhere.
By contrast, simply subsidising drilling company profits so they keep drilling now prioritises 2025-27 over 2023 and 2029, doesn't it?
I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, so I'm just enquiring as an interested layman.
Morning Nick,
apologies I just answered this very point in a posting before I saw your latest comment.
No. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Many of the existing fields are economic because we already have the infrastructure and wells in place. Once you stop investment they quickly become uneconomic because you need new wells drilled and connected to the existing infrastructure to maintain production. Once production falls below a certain level it is no longer economic to continue to produce. The infrastructure gets removed (as is currently happening on many O&G fields in the North Sea) and effectively that oil and gas is lost permanently for UK production.
As an example, to drill a well in the central North Sea costs around £30 - £50 million. West of Shetland probably £80 - £100 million. To create the infrastructure to support those wells costs £1-2 billion. Drilling extra wells off existing infrastructure is economic. Starting from scratch on fields that are already mature is not.
We're playing tag - as I said below, I understand the point - many thanks for explaining.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
could try cutting public sector pensions a bit (more generous by far than private ones anyway) as it amounts to the same things to peoples private pensions by increasing tax rates on big UK corporations that form a big part of private pension funds including ones for low paid private sector workers like NEST.
Its also ludicrous that all the argument is on increasing (already at record percentage levels overall ) the tax take rather than looking at cutting government expenditure . I have worked in the public sector and can tell you it wastes money by the billions on crap vain stuff
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
No, it was a ship, currently moored in Dubai as a building.
Quite right. I should have said QEII.
Funnily enough the launching of the Q4 was when the late Queen did act as a CEO and ignored Cunard’s chosen name for the ship, a simple “Queen Elizabeth” and ad-libbed “Queen Elizabeth the Second” (well, if your Granny & your Mum had named ships after themselves - and them only Queens Consort, why not?). Well, “why not” because in Scotland the “the Second” is contested - hence after initial elation Cunard had a headache which they got round by fudging the issue replacing the Roman “II” with the Arabic “2” throwing up a number of reasons “more contemporary” “more legible at a distance” all the time assiduously refusing to answer whether the QE2 was named after the monarch or the first ship of that name. The consequences cascaded down the decades as when it came to naming the new Queen Mary by then the QE2 was so famous they were left with little option but to call her “Queen Mary 2”. This time the late Queen stuck to the script, though I like to think she said “I name this ship Queen Mary….too”
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
could try cutting public sector pensions a bit (more generous by far than private ones anyway) as it amounts to the same things to peoples private pensions by increasing tax rates on big UK corporations that form a big part of private pension funds including ones for low paid private sector workers like NEST
Yes I would also be a fair bit stricter on public sector pensions, especially at the top end. Not really related though.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
Most of the Government budget is spent on healthcare, pensions, education, defence and public order (plus, for the next couple of years at least, preventing the economy imploding due to rampant energy costs.) There simply aren't enough local government transgender inclusion officers available to cut to make a significant difference to anything.
The state is bloated, but it's bloated mainly because of a combination of external factors beyond the Government's control, and the colossal burden of caring for an increasingly clapped out populace (principally because the country is full of old people, but also because far too many of us are very fat.) Since the Government's core vote consists of fat old people, it won't cut support for them and it won't tax them more either, so it will just borrow and borrow and borrow for as long as people are willing to lend it more money. I don't particularly relish this predicament either, but I don't think anything short of a boycott by the state's lenders or the wholesale disenfranchisement of the OAP population is going to change anything significantly.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Correct as in legal, sure. Do I believe their UK operations are such that they should be receiving tax rebates over a 5 year period? No, much more likely they are gaming the system.
We are way too accepting of mega business, including Amazon, Facebook, Google etc paying far less tax than SMEs and even bigger domestic companies are paying. It is just unfair and pushes up taxes for everyone else.
Yes, clearly corporation tax is easy to dodge for these international companies, who do indeed make vast fortunes for their owners on sales here.
I think the answer is to move away from company tax and towards a revised sales tax, so all of their transactions pay something. Apply the same to SMEs and it levels the playing field and stimulates the right sort of growth.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Your wife sounds eerily similar to mine!
"I'm going to buy this at some point, so let's save the money"
Clothes are not the same as power. After your missus gets back from Harrods, your family balance sheet is down by £50 cash but up by a £150 dress, so your wife is right. You are £100 better off. The dress will be depreciated over a number of years down to zero. Accounting for assets on the national (and notional) balance sheet is how Labour proposed to deal with capital investment (and nationalisation). Power on the other hand is used immediately; you (or most people) do not store gas and electricity; you can't say you spent £2,000 on energy and there it is in the wardrobe. Calor gas users might make that calculation but not most of us.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
could try cutting public sector pensions a bit (more generous by far than private ones anyway) as it amounts to the same things to peoples private pensions by increasing tax rates on big UK corporations that form a big part of private pension funds including ones for low paid private sector workers like NEST
Yes I would also be a fair bit stricter on public sector pensions, especially at the top end. Not really related though.
It is related as by urging assets of peoples private pension funds (BP and Shell etc) to be taxed more , this is cutting private sector pensions so why not public sector ones as well
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
could try cutting public sector pensions a bit (more generous by far than private ones anyway) as it amounts to the same things to peoples private pensions by increasing tax rates on big UK corporations that form a big part of private pension funds including ones for low paid private sector workers like NEST
Yes I would also be a fair bit stricter on public sector pensions, especially at the top end. Not really related though.
It is related as by urging assets of peoples private pension funds (BP and Shell etc) to be taxed more , this is cutting private sector pensions so why not public sector ones as well
OK, well I agree with you, public sector pensions are too generous and occasionally ridiculously so.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
That is the argument with Amazon and the coffee shops, of course. Though Saudi Aramco does not operate service stations along the M6.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
No, it (the cap) is a saving, because it is something you were going to buy anyway, not an optional purchase.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
We definitely need to cut spending but again, where does the growth come from?
I wonder if the new government has the balls to do a zero-based spending review?
The growth comes from lower taxes, falling energy bills, and incentives for companies to invest in the UK rather than elsewhere.
There’s also an argument brewing in the background over City regulation, with government and BoE disagreeing over reserve requirements. If the government wins, there will be a ‘Big Bang 2’.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Indeed. This is exactly the case. And the rate of turnover of those companies as they fail is rapid. Most of them are backed by US investment houses as that is just about the only place to get finance these days. Premier Oil - which was the largest Independent UK O&G company was taken over last year (a reverse takeover because of stock exchange rules) by a non listed company backed by US investors. At the time of take over they had £2.2 billion of debt, most of it due to a single bad development. And they weren't taken over for their UK operations but their overseas assets.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
That might be Liz Truss's argument, although not necessarily one she will be making at the next general election. The state does too much; the state does the right things but inefficiently; the state should do more; all are plausible arguments. What Liz Truss believes?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
Yes you can. America does. Again, this is about practical political reality. There will be a windfall tax.
Is that a prediction or a moral incantation?
A political prediction. People saying "you can't do that" are providing excuses as to why the government don't want to do something they could do but have opted against for ideological reasons.
Ongoing excess profits which are literally paid for by the taxpayer-funded cap is not tenable.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Indeed. This is exactly the case. And the rate of turnover of those companies as they fail is rapid. Most of them are backed by US investment houses as that is just about the only place to get finance these days. Premier Oil - which was the largest Independent UK O&G company was taken over last year (a reverse takeover because of stock exchange rules) by a non listed company backed by US investors. At the time of take over they had £2.2 billion of debt, most of it due to a single bad development. And they weren't taken over for their UK operations but their overseas assets.
This whole issue of windfall tax and N Sea investment increasingly looks to me like a classic example of where the populalist political solution does not remotely match the reality.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
BP and Shell is a portion of nearly everyones pension fund savings (except those who have been in far more generous public sector pension schemes ) - I wonder what the polling would be on extra windfall taxes if it was phrased - shoudl we tax your private pension pot now to slightly fund the gas price subsidy? What would be the reaction if public sector workers were told their pension rights will be arbitrarily reduced to pay for the gas subsidy?
That's fine, except that not everyone has pension assets...
Ultimately, the money transfers go from consumers of energy to investors in firms "making" energy. Everything else is damping.
If we want to soften the immediate blow (and we need to) the money for this comes from present us or future us, or some subset thereof. And future us is a bit cheeky, since it includes those who won't benefit. (Actual Thatcher understood this.)
There's no painless way of doing this, which is a problem for whichever party is left hiding the baby. The government still has a duty to get it as right as they can, and they arguably haven't.
The government is throwing more than £100,000,000,000 at the problem. How much more should be spent by future taxpayers?
That I don't know for sure, but a rough answer would be something like when the lifetime costs of intervening are about the same as the lifetime costs of not intervening and a huge recession happening.
There are people with the data and tools to have a stab at that, but I'm not one of them. But bear in mind that those who are calling for windfall taxes to be part of the response are doing so because they want to leave less mess for the future. In a different way, the same goes for those wanting to leave more hydrocarbons in the ground for longer.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
That might be Liz Truss's argument, although not necessarily one she will be making at the next general election. The state does too much; the state does the right things but inefficiently; the state should do more; all are plausible arguments. What Liz Truss believes?
the trouble is that politicians of whatever party colour become part of the state and power grabing (more money helps that ) when they get their hands on the levers of state and government. Almost by definition politicians are people who think they can manage the state for the benefit of people - hence statists - they may call themselves tories or non socialists but its only at the slight margin and bascially love state power (as they are at the helm) as much as the next politican .
Tax take as a percentage of income is at a all time high after 12 years of tory government -
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
We definitely need to cut spending but again, where does the growth come from?
I wonder if the new government has the balls to do a zero-based spending review?
The growth comes from lower taxes, falling energy bills, and incentives for companies to invest in the UK rather than elsewhere.
There’s also an argument brewing in the background over City regulation, with government and BoE disagreeing over reserve requirements. If the government wins, there will be a ‘Big Bang 2’.
Financial deregulation to increase gearing? How could that possibly go wrong...
When discussing the make up of the cabinet the other day I did point out how so many of them had made fortunes in financial services. All hail our money changing masters!
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Correct as in legal, sure. Do I believe their UK operations are such that they should be receiving tax rebates over a 5 year period? No, much more likely they are gaming the system.
We are way too accepting of mega business, including Amazon, Facebook, Google etc paying far less tax than SMEs and even bigger domestic companies are paying. It is just unfair and pushes up taxes for everyone else.
I don't know the exact details but it may well be that they sold the fields but retained the liability or the abandonment costs on fields. In a lot of cases in the past companies went bust and the Government at the time persuaded the bigger players to step in and take over the fields even where they were not economic but with the promise of help on abandonment liabilities in terms of tax rebates. This was after a number of companies in the late 90s and early 2000s simply dissolved themselves (or at least their UK operations) and left us holding the baby on abandonment costs.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
Also raise the retirement age to 70 and import lots of productive young people from developed English-speaking countries and Hong Kong. Oh and build some garden cities so they have places to live, bribing locals with shares of the house prices.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Does it matter? Unless you are a stamp collector or the King's travel agent, what difference does it make who is Australia's head of state? They'll still beat us at cricket, rugby and swimming.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
Yes, I've gone back to find it. It isn't bluster. The public believe this government to be untrustworthy liars - all the polls show that. They believe Liz Truss to twist and turn more than a twisty turny thing - again see the polls.
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Excellent news. Anything that helps to keep it in the ground gets my vote. The underlying cause of the energy crisis has been insufficient urgency in the development of renewables, and anything that helps push progress on that front is a good thing. Hydrocarbons should be exploited only when necessary, not squandered as they have been on providing unsustainably cheap energy thus hindering the development of clean alternatives.
Again., stupidly short sighted. Part of the reason for the current energy crisis is that we decided to cut back on oil and gas production long before we could ever have sufficient renewables to fill the gap and so have to rely on imports.
Stanislaw Lem, the great Polish Sci-F writer once wrote a story about a king who wanted all his subjects to become amphibians and so, to make them develop gills he started to raise the water level in his country by an inch a year. He couldn't understand it when all his subjects drowned.
Your policy is much the same. Wishing it would be any other way doesn't change reality.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
That might be Liz Truss's argument, although not necessarily one she will be making at the next general election. The state does too much; the state does the right things but inefficiently; the state should do more; all are plausible arguments. What Liz Truss believes?
the trouble is that politicians of whatever party colour become part of the state and power grabing (more money helps that ) when they get their hands on the levers of state and government. Almost by definition politicians are people who think they can manage the state for the benefit of people - hence statists - they may call themselves tories or non socialists but its only at the slight margin and bascially love state power (as they are at the helm) as much as the next politican .
Tax take as a percentage of income is at a all time high after 12 years of tory government -
Short of taking an axe to welfare (which means taking an axe to state pensions) or health, that's inevitable.
Going back to an earlier comment of mine, there can be a massive time-lag between a decision and its effect. In the case of pensions (or to take another big issue, housing), the time-lag is measured in decades.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
I know. The point I’m making is that CEOs personality and values have a big influence, it’s not just their decisions and direct power that shapes the tone of an organisation.
If a leader is known for being frugal, everyone will start being frugal. You don’t have to be absolute monarch to have a similar influence on tone. If the monarch clearly values X, then people will also value X. It’s subtle.
I’m convinced HM had a big influence.
The Queen was known for being frugal. People have not behaved frugally in recent years.
I can well believe that companies are going to make big profits based on the enormous price of gas and the fact that usage will not come down as much given state intervention. So companies will effectively be getting a load of cash from the government. Which ones though? The windfall tax stuff does seem rather unspecific. If SKS isn't really a policy details person, he needs people in shadow ministerial roles who are.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
Yes, I've gone back to find it. It isn't bluster. The public believe this government to be untrustworthy liars - all the polls show that. They believe Liz Truss to twist and turn more than a twisty turny thing - again see the polls.
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
In all of this I rejoice Johnson has gone and am pleased with Liz Truss, not least because she will get a hearing and over the next two years may just give the conservatives a listening to
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I am not a Tory but I should be sympathetic to a lot of Truss's policies. All I can say right now in her favour is that she isn't Boris. And that really is damning with faint praise.
I fully admit I could be totally wrong but I see no signs of it yet.
Charles on the other hand seems to have stepped up to the plate magnificently.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Indeed. This is exactly the case. And the rate of turnover of those companies as they fail is rapid. Most of them are backed by US investment houses as that is just about the only place to get finance these days. Premier Oil - which was the largest Independent UK O&G company was taken over last year (a reverse takeover because of stock exchange rules) by a non listed company backed by US investors. At the time of take over they had £2.2 billion of debt, most of it due to a single bad development. And they weren't taken over for their UK operations but their overseas assets.
This whole issue of windfall tax and N Sea investment increasingly looks to me like a classic example of where the populalist political solution does not remotely match the reality.
Populist political solutions do have a tendency to do that.
Brexit is now being run by a clique of metropolitan libertarian privately educated financiers. Its just what the people of Hartlepool, Stoke and Brixham had in mind to be rid of.
BP and Shell is a portion of nearly everyones pension fund savings (except those who have been in far more generous public sector pension schemes ) - I wonder what the polling would be on extra windfall taxes if it was phrased - shoudl we tax your private pension pot now to slightly fund the gas price subsidy? What would be the reaction if public sector workers were told their pension rights will be arbitrarily reduced to pay for the gas subsidy?
I suspect that public support for windfall taxes would collapse if they realised that they would be paying for it indirectly.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
could try cutting public sector pensions a bit (more generous by far than private ones anyway) as it amounts to the same things to peoples private pensions by increasing tax rates on big UK corporations that form a big part of private pension funds including ones for low paid private sector workers like NEST
Yes I would also be a fair bit stricter on public sector pensions, especially at the top end. Not really related though.
It is related as by urging assets of peoples private pension funds (BP and Shell etc) to be taxed more , this is cutting private sector pensions so why not public sector ones as well
You are missing the point that taxes on Shell or BP would be on their UK assets/earnings. Pension fund shares are of course on their worldwide assets.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I just don't get it. She said "no bailouts" for week after week. Then takes office and unveils a bailout not for the public but for the energy companies - paid for by the public. "No windfall tax" will go the same way, because a clear majority of their own voters think it wrong.
It truly does feel like a 90s throwback where Redwood won and stuffed the cabinet with the likes of Theresa Gorman. We can't quite believe they are in office, we still remember the disastrous previous government, and now we're being told with sneering disdain that we have to pay for Shell and BP to pay bumper bonuses AND should be appreciative of it.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
Truss is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, accompanying the King on his tour of the United Kingdom.
Good thing we tax dividends at income tax rates, in that case.
This is another one of those issues where the public and many politicians are flat out wrong. We want giant companies paying lots of dividends in the UK. Just as we want footballers to be "overpaid".
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I think that’s a really unfair assessment. I suspect that decision was made before Truss took office re accompanying the new sovereign and it’s designed to show continuity in political leadership as well as the Crown. It doesn’t sound like she’s going to be having any kind of leading role anyway.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I just don't get it. She said "no bailouts" for week after week. Then takes office and unveils a bailout not for the public but for the energy companies - paid for by the public. "No windfall tax" will go the same way, because a clear majority of their own voters think it wrong.
You were repeatedly told that you were misinterpreting her position before she became Prime Minister. How about admitting that you were wrong on that?
I was struck by how governments Energy Plan (or just bare bones of one we got last week, devoid of costs and exit plan) was widely savaged by charities at the sharp end for not providing enough help to those most in need. It’s hated too by Think Tanks from left to right across the spectrum - needlessly inefficient and expensive, the completely untargeted nature makes the unfunded proposal wasteful, which will put pressure on public finances for an unknown amount of time, this the shared groan from all economic think-tanks from right to left.
It is the Martin Lewis, Lib Dem, Labour Truss Plan - or for those who like a good acronym, this is the MALLUT we are taking to this problem - it looks like our political establishment will soon rubber stamp it so it can quickly get to work saving lives - once the opposition amendment to extend windfall tax is voted down. If indeed it is, maybe not.
I was cheerleading for this freeze. I’m not so sure now after reading those responses to it, and reading about the other good ideas which are out there.
For me, the right plan has to first answer the question Ydoethur posed on PB - what’s is a standard household or business? Liz Truss solution is built around that “standard” so is largely a one size fits all approach. Not very agile or VFM thinking like that is it?
There is a less expensive, much better targeted to where it’s needed, and actually largely pays for itself option we can take. It’s called a variable price cap and will go further in lowering the bills for the poorest, where simply put, cost of energy per unit goes up the more energy a person uses. This link sold it to me
So I am no longer a supporter of the needlessly expensive freeze plan of this government, needlessly expensive because it’s not the only option we have to take, it’s not even the best option imo.
We can wield this MALLUT in haste, and have plenty of time to regret it.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Politically, I think Truss is on a loser in this argument (and Moonshine too). But leaving party politics aside for a moment, isn't the position different from, say, the semiconductor industry, where semiconductors not manufactured in 2022 are never going to magically reappear later? The gas reserves are sitting under the North Sea and have been there basically forever. At some point, we will want to extract them. Is it not perfectly viable to take profits in a time of financial emergency and accept that this will discourage investment so that there will be a price in, say, 2026-28? If all the companies push off, then there will be a case for a national extraction company doing the job in, say, 2029, or simply lowering the windfall tax in a couple of years to bring investment back in. The gas isn't going anywhere.
By contrast, simply subsidising drilling company profits so they keep drilling now prioritises 2025-27 over 2023 and 2029, doesn't it?
I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, so I'm just enquiring as an interested layman.
Morning Nick,
apologies I just answered this very point in a posting before I saw your latest comment.
No. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Many of the existing fields are economic because we already have the infrastructure and wells in place. Once you stop investment they quickly become uneconomic because you need new wells drilled and connected to the existing infrastructure to maintain production. Once production falls below a certain level it is no longer economic to continue to produce. The infrastructure gets removed (as is currently happening on many O&G fields in the North Sea) and effectively that oil and gas is lost permanently for UK production.
As an example, to drill a well in the central North Sea costs around £30 - £50 million. West of Shetland probably £80 - £100 million. To create the infrastructure to support those wells costs £1-2 billion. Drilling extra wells off existing infrastructure is economic. Starting from scratch on fields that are already mature is not.
We're playing tag - as I said below, I understand the point - many thanks for explaining.
I would further add - Venezuela is an example of what happens when you stop investing in production. Chavez deliberately took the investment money and spent it. This caused production to collapse in the medium and long term.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I think that’s a really unfair assessment. I suspect that decision was made before Truss took office re accompanying the new sovereign and it’s designed to show continuity in political leadership as well as the Crown. It doesn’t sound like she’s going to be having any kind of leading role anyway.
These plans have been in place for decades. Under Corbyn SO was more thoughtful in his analysis, now with an electable Labour leader his anti-Tory loathing has resurfaced - they can do no right.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I just don't get it. She said "no bailouts" for week after week. Then takes office and unveils a bailout not for the public but for the energy companies - paid for by the public. "No windfall tax" will go the same way, because a clear majority of their own voters think it wrong.
You were repeatedly told that you were misinterpreting her position before she became Prime Minister. How about admitting that you were wrong on that?
All the press, including the Tory friendly press, were repeating that interpretation. She kept saying the same at the following hustings after it was reported. She either wanted that interpretation or is incredibly stupid. She is not incredibly stupid.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Excellent news. Anything that helps to keep it in the ground gets my vote. The underlying cause of the energy crisis has been insufficient urgency in the development of renewables, and anything that helps push progress on that front is a good thing. Hydrocarbons should be exploited only when necessary, not squandered as they have been on providing unsustainably cheap energy thus hindering the development of clean alternatives.
Again., stupidly short sighted. Part of the reason for the current energy crisis is that we decided to cut back on oil and gas production long before we could ever have sufficient renewables to fill the gap and so have to rely on imports.
Stanislaw Lem, the great Polish Sci-F writer once wrote a story about a king who wanted all his subjects to become amphibians and so, to make them develop gills he started to raise the water level in his country by an inch a year. He couldn't understand it when all his subjects drowned.
Your policy is much the same. Wishing it would be any other way doesn't change reality.
Yes if anything there is a clear market failure occurring. Whereby hydrocarbons are receiving insufficient investment during the transition period because the private sector is not incentivised to do so. But for economic and strategic resilience reasons, we need to make sure that transition is smooth. The market is failing and rather than cure that market failure, the political class in this country want to exacerbate that market failure.
Personally I would have taken the shares of the Stanlowe refinery for free rather than bail out the crooks that own it with tax payer money. State owned but private run. There are similar arguments with investment in gas drilling. Cost of finance is simply becoming too high, so we’re leaving export revenue on the table because of dogma. And now we see worse than that of course.
At the same time of course we need to ramp up North Sea renewables, Severn tidal, insulation, roof top solar and storage. But perhaps the anti fossil fuel gang would care to explain how they will run their second hand cars if there is no oil. And how they will heat their inefficient houses without gas or heating oil (heat pumps chuckle).
The answer to these questions is time. We need time to replace the ICE vehicle fleet with EVs. And for the technology and scale to improve on electric energy to heating (whether heat pumps, hydrogen, molten salt, biogas or whatever).
Elon Musk no less, the high prince of renewable energy, said recently that stopping using hydrocarbons now would lead to civilisation collapse and we need for now to keep investing.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
Yes, I've gone back to find it. It isn't bluster. The public believe this government to be untrustworthy liars - all the polls show that. They believe Liz Truss to twist and turn more than a twisty turny thing - again see the polls.
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
In all of this I rejoice Johnson has gone and am pleased with Liz Truss, not least because she will get a hearing and over the next two years may just give the conservatives a listening to
It is far too early to triumph a Labour 2024 win
I'm not even doing that. My point is simple - the Tories have built a massive problem for themselves, and so far Truss is making it worse. They can't even brand Starmer "boring" any more - Truss is even worse. The "two soups" meme of her curtseying keeps doing the rounds on social media. She has biiiiig problems, and a supposed "aha!" from Mark Harper is not going to turn that around.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
There are two separate discussions here.
Firstly there is a practical one - what do we do about the energy crisis? How do we get through this winter with as little damage as possible, and how do we make sure we avoid similar difficulties next winter? It's important that the government takes action that addresses these practical points.
Then there is a political one - who gets the blame for a difficult winter? Can the government bring the public with it? Will the opposition be able to pin the blame for a hard winter onto the government?
I see a lot of people today completely ignoring the existence of the second discussion. It's exactly the same thing as happened with the £350m sent to the EU. If the government were to go on about all the practical difficulties in Labour's stated windfall tax policy, they only draw more attention to Labour's policy of making energy companies shoulder their share of the burden of getting through a difficult winter. Politically it really doesn't help the government at all.
This is a good point and shows that Starmer may be a far more canny politicians than he is given credit for.
But to be honest I think the Government is screwed whatever they do. There best bet in the long term politically would be to lose a GE as soon as possible and watch whilst Starmer is left trying to solve a problem that has been decades in the making - and not the responsibility of any one Government - and for which there is no painless answer. Let him impose his additional windfall tax and then see how little it brings in. I don't say that in any way in a gloating manner. I rather like Starmer and would not be any more scared of him being PM than I am of Truss. I just think this current problem is insoluble in the short term and risks us doing massive long term damage if we take the wrong actions.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
The large extractives incur huge losses in the UK. They spend billions on central overheads, exploration and project costs which they struggle to charge out to their foreign operations many of which are JVs.
That’s not smart accountants, it’s the highly inefficient situation you get when a company is listed and headquartered in one country but has most of its profitable operations elsewhere.
Yes, but they HQ and book central costs that way in order to deduct them against tax, and pay as little as they can across their operating jurisdictions.
No they don’t. If they could find ways to push as much cost out of the UK as possible, they would. Indeed it’s a permanent headache for all extractives - oil and gas, but even more so for the miners.
All these companies’ global effective tax rates are available online.
How much do the windfall chasers want to excess tax BP this year?
We've established that you don't care what their accounts say their profit or loss is, so you presumably have an idea of how many billions of pounds extra you think they just ought to pay
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I just don't get it. She said "no bailouts" for week after week. Then takes office and unveils a bailout not for the public but for the energy companies - paid for by the public. "No windfall tax" will go the same way, because a clear majority of their own voters think it wrong.
You were repeatedly told that you were misinterpreting her position before she became Prime Minister. How about admitting that you were wrong on that?
Wrong on what? She isn't providing a bailout. I said what she did would be too little, too late and sneering. So far we have: "too little" - a cap that is double last winter's bills where she is bailing out the energy companies and not us, with our money "too late" - the windfall tax that will come "sneeringly" - she made JRM energy minister.
Nor can anyone say for definite what her big bailout plan is. We had a few hours of debate in the Commons. With the speaker incandescent that no detail had been released. Then word circulated about the Queen. And politics stopped.
If it turns out that she will be using a combination of energy company excess profits and borrowing and money saved from not cutting taxes to hand money out to the people that need it, I will say "I was wrong". That hasn't happened. Has it.
I was struck by how governments Energy Plan (or just bare bones of one we got last week, devoid of costs and exit plan) was widely savaged by charities at the sharp end for not providing enough help to those most in need. It’s hated too by Think Tanks from left to right across the spectrum - needlessly inefficient and expensive, the completely untargeted nature makes the unfunded proposal wasteful, which will put pressure on public finances for an unknown amount of time, this the shared groan from all economic think-tanks from right to left.
It is the Martin Lewis, Lib Dem, Labour Truss Plan - or for those who like a good acronym, this is the MALLUT we are taking to this problem - it looks like our political establishment will soon rubber stamp it so it can quickly get to work saving lives - once the opposition amendment to extend windfall tax is voted down. If indeed it is, maybe not.
I was cheerleading for this freeze. I’m not so sure now after reading those responses to it, and reading about the other good ideas which are out there.
For me, the right plan has to first answer the question Ydoethur posed on PB - what’s is a standard household or business? Liz Truss solution is built around that “standard” so is largely a one size fits all approach. Not very agile or VFM thinking like that is it?
There is a less expensive, much better targeted to where it’s needed, and actually largely pays for itself option we can take. It’s called a variable price cap and will go further in lowering the bills for the poorest, where simply put, cost of energy per unit goes up the more energy a person uses. This link sold it to me
So I am no longer a supporter of the needlessly expensive freeze plan of this government, needlessly expensive because it’s not the only option we have to take, it’s not even the best option imo.
We can wield this MALLUT in haste, and have plenty of time to regret it.
One of the energy company CEOs suggested giving everyone a certain amount of subsidised energy, and letting everyone use more than that if they were prepared to pay for it. Would need some tinkering with so that people with high energy needs due to health issues or disability could be supported, but at least it would give people an incentive to save energy.
I have been paying a bit more than I need to and have run up a £200-£300 surplus, but my calculations are that I could see a reduction of £40 in my monthly bill in October. I am going to continue to try to save energy, but I don't really have much of an incentive.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
But you're a Tory hater, so your views on how things will be seen are tainted accordingly.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
Most of the Government budget is spent on healthcare, pensions, education, defence and public order (plus, for the next couple of years at least, preventing the economy imploding due to rampant energy costs.) There simply aren't enough local government transgender inclusion officers available to cut to make a significant difference to anything.
The state is bloated, but it's bloated mainly because of a combination of external factors beyond the Government's control, and the colossal burden of caring for an increasingly clapped out populace (principally because the country is full of old people, but also because far too many of us are very fat.) Since the Government's core vote consists of fat old people, it won't cut support for them and it won't tax them more either, so it will just borrow and borrow and borrow for as long as people are willing to lend it more money. I don't particularly relish this predicament either, but I don't think anything short of a boycott by the state's lenders or the wholesale disenfranchisement of the OAP population is going to change anything significantly.
"Cut spending" is like "create more growth" and "help ordinary preople" - it barely qualifies as a slogan, let alone a policy. What spending would you cut, Max, and how much annual spending would it save?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
Yes, I've gone back to find it. It isn't bluster. The public believe this government to be untrustworthy liars - all the polls show that. They believe Liz Truss to twist and turn more than a twisty turny thing - again see the polls.
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
In all of this I rejoice Johnson has gone and am pleased with Liz Truss, not least because she will get a hearing and over the next two years may just give the conservatives a listening to
It is far too early to triumph a Labour 2024 win
I'm not even doing that. My point is simple - the Tories have built a massive problem for themselves, and so far Truss is making it worse. They can't even brand Starmer "boring" any more - Truss is even worse. The "two soups" meme of her curtseying keeps doing the rounds on social media. She has biiiiig problems, and a supposed "aha!" from Mark Harper is not going to turn that around.
So you think twitter is a reliable source of opinion
Your views are entirely consistent with your politics but I simply reject your anti Truss narrative, Johnson yes but Truss no
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
There are two separate discussions here.
Firstly there is a practical one - what do we do about the energy crisis? How do we get through this winter with as little damage as possible, and how do we make sure we avoid similar difficulties next winter? It's important that the government takes action that addresses these practical points.
Then there is a political one - who gets the blame for a difficult winter? Can the government bring the public with it? Will the opposition be able to pin the blame for a hard winter onto the government?
I see a lot of people today completely ignoring the existence of the second discussion. It's exactly the same thing as happened with the £350m sent to the EU. If the government were to go on about all the practical difficulties in Labour's stated windfall tax policy, they only draw more attention to Labour's policy of making energy companies shoulder their share of the burden of getting through a difficult winter. Politically it really doesn't help the government at all.
This is a good point and shows that Starmer may be a far more canny politicians than he is given credit for.
But to be honest I think the Government is screwed whatever they do. There best bet in the long term politically would be to lose a GE as soon as possible and watch whilst Starmer is left trying to solve a problem that has been decades in the making - and not the responsibility of any one Government - and for which there is no painless answer. Let him impose his additional windfall tax and then see how little it brings in. I don't say that in any way in a gloating manner. I rather like Starmer and would not be any more scared of him being PM than I am of Truss. I just think this current problem is insoluble in the short term and risks us doing massive long term damage if we take the wrong actions.
The windfall tax won't pay for this and nobody is saying that it will. But the political decision is who gets which slice of the bill. And with the proposed energy company bailout "the bill" is guaranteeing their excess profits. Not charging them a percentage of this windfall would be bad business even in the private sector.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Excellent news. Anything that helps to keep it in the ground gets my vote. The underlying cause of the energy crisis has been insufficient urgency in the development of renewables, and anything that helps push progress on that front is a good thing. Hydrocarbons should be exploited only when necessary, not squandered as they have been on providing unsustainably cheap energy thus hindering the development of clean alternatives.
Again., stupidly short sighted. Part of the reason for the current energy crisis is that we decided to cut back on oil and gas production long before we could ever have sufficient renewables to fill the gap and so have to rely on imports.
Stanislaw Lem, the great Polish Sci-F writer once wrote a story about a king who wanted all his subjects to become amphibians and so, to make them develop gills he started to raise the water level in his country by an inch a year. He couldn't understand it when all his subjects drowned.
Your policy is much the same. Wishing it would be any other way doesn't change reality.
If you don't understand why renewables would have been developed more quickly if the price of fossil fuels had reflected their finite nature and the environmental damage they cause, then you don't know the first principles of economics.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
We definitely need to cut spending but again, where does the growth come from?
The problem is not exactly the total amount of spending, but the very poor return we get from this spending. The well known example is that the projected cost of HS2 is over thirty times per km the cost of the equivalent French TGV Nord. The cause of this problem is that the government does not have sufficient expertise, either in house or at reasonable consultancy fee prices. This is a problem across the civil service: another example is that the cost of tax collection, while sharply reduced from 3% of revenue a few years ago, is still substantially more than our competitors. The longest tax code in the world is a miserable record to hold.
The public sector does not offer its services at efficient prices, and the private sector is equally expensive. In order to reduce costs, the public sector needs to develop and renew expertise it has mostly lost or never had, and in the short term that means investment, not cuts. More cuts, especially the across the board, budget cuts the Tories propose, simply weaken the capacity of the state still further. The UK needs to build up its administrative capacity, for example by strengthening the civil service college, so that the public sector can be a better, more informed, consumer of services offered by the private sector and at the same time to develop its arbitration functions, especially in natural monopolies. It is also time to recognise that QUANGOs are not always the answer to administrative failure.
Radical solutions are now needed, and an ideological preference for either public or private sector does not actually solve the problem. Without major reform of administration, including the constitution, the UK will continue its national decline. No tier of local government: Local, national or UK level is functioning well, and that is the root of much our economic malaise and political frivolity. We have more PMs alive at present, because even the central office of state can not deal with the national crisis without major reform.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
could try cutting public sector pensions a bit (more generous by far than private ones anyway) as it amounts to the same things to peoples private pensions by increasing tax rates on big UK corporations that form a big part of private pension funds including ones for low paid private sector workers like NEST
Yes I would also be a fair bit stricter on public sector pensions, especially at the top end. Not really related though.
It is related as by urging assets of peoples private pension funds (BP and Shell etc) to be taxed more , this is cutting private sector pensions so why not public sector ones as well
You are missing the point that taxes on Shell or BP would be on their UK assets/earnings. Pension fund shares are of course on their worldwide assets.
So it is very far from "the same thing".
This is a good point but it then reduces the tax take to negligible.
Shell makes 92% of its earnings outside the UK BP makes 90% of its earnings outside the UK (I only found this one out this morning from the BBC)
Those UK earnings are already taxed at 65% (I saw someone quoted 69% but I think that is wrong)
So how much are you going to make from increasing those taxes?
In support of your argument though, I am not sure my investment suppression argument works for BP and Shell as they do bugger all in the UK anyway.
How much do the windfall chasers want to excess tax BP this year?
We've established that you don't care what their accounts say their profit or loss is, so you presumably have an idea of how many billions of pounds extra you think they just ought to pay
The Truss plan imposes a double last year cap until at least 2024. Not that the price of energy is capped, merely the amount that can be charged. The bailout is the government taking our money to guarantee these excess profits for 2 years.
So "how much" is back to projections. How much subsidy will the UK government provide to these energy companies over that period? Charging them a percentage to allow them to keep the extra £ is good business - especially when other countries are being much harsher.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
Yes, I've gone back to find it. It isn't bluster. The public believe this government to be untrustworthy liars - all the polls show that. They believe Liz Truss to twist and turn more than a twisty turny thing - again see the polls.
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
In all of this I rejoice Johnson has gone and am pleased with Liz Truss, not least because she will get a hearing and over the next two years may just give the conservatives a listening to
It is far too early to triumph a Labour 2024 win
I'm not even doing that. My point is simple - the Tories have built a massive problem for themselves, and so far Truss is making it worse. They can't even brand Starmer "boring" any more - Truss is even worse. The "two soups" meme of her curtseying keeps doing the rounds on social media. She has biiiiig problems, and a supposed "aha!" from Mark Harper is not going to turn that around.
So you think twitter is a reliable source of opinion
Your views are entirely consistent with your politics but I simply reject your anti Truss narrative, Johnson yes but Truss no
It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the public think. And they dislike her a lot according to the polls. That is what I am basing this on, not Twitter.
The last days have shown “a collapse of Russian troops in a front, and when that psychological collapse starts, it often has a cascading effect; it’s very difficult to recover from,” Jack Watling, a military expert at the Royal United Services Institute, a defense research group, told the BBC
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Correct as in legal, sure. Do I believe their UK operations are such that they should be receiving tax rebates over a 5 year period? No, much more likely they are gaming the system.
We are way too accepting of mega business, including Amazon, Facebook, Google etc paying far less tax than SMEs and even bigger domestic companies are paying. It is just unfair and pushes up taxes for everyone else.
Yes, clearly corporation tax is easy to dodge for these international companies, who do indeed make vast fortunes for their owners on sales here.
I think the answer is to move away from company tax and towards a revised sales tax, so all of their transactions pay something. Apply the same to SMEs and it levels the playing field and stimulates the right sort of growth.
Simply not true for the large capital intensive UK headquartered groups. Corporation tax is not “easy to dodge” nor in most cases (for our domestic groups) is that a priority. The priority is managing the huge raft of compliance worldwide across dozens of different tax systems, and the data to support it.
Even the more enlightened US groups are getting there.
Assuming multinationals spend all their time conspiring to cook up whizzy tax schemes is like assuming Brussels bureaucrats spend their hours conspiring to straighten our bananas. It’s populist.
I was struck by how governments Energy Plan (or just bare bones of one we got last week, devoid of costs and exit plan) was widely savaged by charities at the sharp end for not providing enough help to those most in need. It’s hated too by Think Tanks from left to right across the spectrum - needlessly inefficient and expensive, the completely untargeted nature makes the unfunded proposal wasteful, which will put pressure on public finances for an unknown amount of time, this the shared groan from all economic think-tanks from right to left.
It is the Martin Lewis, Lib Dem, Labour Truss Plan - or for those who like a good acronym, this is the MALLUT we are taking to this problem - it looks like our political establishment will soon rubber stamp it so it can quickly get to work saving lives - once the opposition amendment to extend windfall tax is voted down. If indeed it is, maybe not.
I was cheerleading for this freeze. I’m not so sure now after reading those responses to it, and reading about the other good ideas which are out there.
For me, the right plan has to first answer the question Ydoethur posed on PB - what’s is a standard household or business? Liz Truss solution is built around that “standard” so is largely a one size fits all approach. Not very agile or VFM thinking like that is it?
There is a less expensive, much better targeted to where it’s needed, and actually largely pays for itself option we can take. It’s called a variable price cap and will go further in lowering the bills for the poorest, where simply put, cost of energy per unit goes up the more energy a person uses. This link sold it to me
So I am no longer a supporter of the needlessly expensive freeze plan of this government, needlessly expensive because it’s not the only option we have to take, it’s not even the best option imo.
We can wield this MALLUT in haste, and have plenty of time to regret it.
One of the energy company CEOs suggested giving everyone a certain amount of subsidised energy, and letting everyone use more than that if they were prepared to pay for it. Would need some tinkering with so that people with high energy needs due to health issues or disability could be supported, but at least it would give people an incentive to save energy.
I have been paying a bit more than I need to and have run up a £200-£300 surplus, but my calculations are that I could see a reduction of £40 in my monthly bill in October. I am going to continue to try to save energy, but I don't really have much of an incentive.
As per unit energy is over double what it has tended to be in the past, the incentive to save has notionally doubled. In reality it is much more than double as the rest of our spending is also being squeezed. People will cut usage significantly even at the capped rates.
I was struck by how governments Energy Plan (or just bare bones of one we got last week, devoid of costs and exit plan) was widely savaged by charities at the sharp end for not providing enough help to those most in need. It’s hated too by Think Tanks from left to right across the spectrum - needlessly inefficient and expensive, the completely untargeted nature makes the unfunded proposal wasteful, which will put pressure on public finances for an unknown amount of time, this the shared groan from all economic think-tanks from right to left.
It is the Martin Lewis, Lib Dem, Labour Truss Plan - or for those who like a good acronym, this is the MALLUT we are taking to this problem - it looks like our political establishment will soon rubber stamp it so it can quickly get to work saving lives - once the opposition amendment to extend windfall tax is voted down. If indeed it is, maybe not.
I was cheerleading for this freeze. I’m not so sure now after reading those responses to it, and reading about the other good ideas which are out there.
For me, the right plan has to first answer the question Ydoethur posed on PB - what’s is a standard household or business? Liz Truss solution is built around that “standard” so is largely a one size fits all approach. Not very agile or VFM thinking like that is it?
There is a less expensive, much better targeted to where it’s needed, and actually largely pays for itself option we can take. It’s called a variable price cap and will go further in lowering the bills for the poorest, where simply put, cost of energy per unit goes up the more energy a person uses. This link sold it to me
So I am no longer a supporter of the needlessly expensive freeze plan of this government, needlessly expensive because it’s not the only option we have to take, it’s not even the best option imo.
We can wield this MALLUT in haste, and have plenty of time to regret it.
I don't think a price cap based on household income makes sense.
What happens if you're on a good salary today, but lose your job (or your business goes bust) due to recession next month? How responsive would such a policy be?
What about student houses? Are students rich (if supported by parents) or poor (if living on loans)?
What about middle income pensioners? Will they be content to pay more for their energy or will they economise in such a way that's detrimental to their health?
Will it act as a marginal rate of tax trap, i.e. disincentivise work. Would a person working four days a week decide not to work a fifth day because it would move them into a new rate of "energy tax" (higher cap).
Ultimately a price cap based on household income functions as another form of graduated income tax, with all the associated problems with that, including a high administrative burden.
A much simpler way to do things would be to graduate the cost of energy. The first x mwh are charged at £lower rate and the second x mwh are charged at £higher rate. Gear it so that it encourages a 15% reduction in energy usage - people can be more than comfortable just heating one room, taking shorter showers, etc.
TL;DR there should be two price caps, a low rate for ordinary use covering about 85% of normal use, and then a tax til the pips squeak higher rate for additional energy use to stop the "heating on full blast in my t shirt and shorts in jan" brigade.
How much do the windfall chasers want to excess tax BP this year?
We've established that you don't care what their accounts say their profit or loss is, so you presumably have an idea of how many billions of pounds extra you think they just ought to pay
What does Liz Truss think is the right level for a windfall tax? The answer used to be zero, until Rishi Sunak imposed one. What is it now? As with George Bernard Shaw's dining companion, the principle has been conceded, now it is just haggling about the price.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
We definitely need to cut spending but again, where does the growth come from?
The problem is not exactly the total amount of spending, but the very poor return we get from this spending. The well known example is that the projected cost of HS2 is over thirty times per km the cost of the equivalent French TGV Nord. The cause of this problem is that the government does not have sufficient expertise, either in house or at reasonable consultancy fee prices. This is a problem across the civil service: another example is that the cost of tax collection, while sharply reduced from 3% of revenue a few years ago, is still substantially more than our competitors. The longest tax code in the world is a miserable record to hold.
The public sector does not offer its services at efficient prices, and the private sector is equally expensive. In order to reduce costs, the public sector needs to develop and renew expertise it has mostly lost or never had, and in the short term that means investment, not cuts. More cuts, especially the across the board, budget cuts the Tories propose, simply weaken the capacity of the state still further. The UK needs to build up its administrative capacity, for example by strengthening the civil service college, so that the public sector can be a better, more informed, consumer of services offered by the private sector and at the same time to develop its arbitration functions, especially in natural monopolies. It is also time to recognise that QUANGOs are not always the answer to administrative failure.
Radical solutions are now needed, and an ideological preference for either public or private sector does not actually solve the problem. Without major reform of administration, including the constitution, the UK will continue its national decline. No tier of local government: Local, national or UK level is functioning well, and that is the root of much our economic malaise and political frivolity. We have more PMs alive at present, because even the central office of state can not deal with the national crisis without major reform.
Absolutely this. We are comparatively crap at pretty much every bit of basic administration. As I keep pointing out to the "just nationalise it" rampers, in the case of the railways it is the DfT who are directly responsible for the problems. A the same time, our version of "the market" is this quarter's profit statement. A quick profit selling something off abroad is preferable to a well regulated strategic market which delivers both assets the state needs and private profit.
So I understand the Cummings argument that Whitehall needs to be smashed. Its just "and replaced by what" was never more than some crayon drawings.
How much do the windfall chasers want to excess tax BP this year?
We've established that you don't care what their accounts say their profit or loss is, so you presumably have an idea of how many billions of pounds extra you think they just ought to pay
The Truss plan imposes a double last year cap until at least 2024. Not that the price of energy is capped, merely the amount that can be charged. The bailout is the government taking our money to guarantee these excess profits for 2 years.
So "how much" is back to projections. How much subsidy will the UK government provide to these energy companies over that period? Charging them a percentage to allow them to keep the extra £ is good business - especially when other countries are being much harsher.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
In a business plan is it really hard to factor in that if you make a completely unexpected £50bn, £5bn of that might go on a windfall tax? And why would you not factor it in as a possibility regardless of who the current PM is, when your time horizon is many decades and you don't know who the PM will be in 2024 let alone 2042?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
Yes, I've gone back to find it. It isn't bluster. The public believe this government to be untrustworthy liars - all the polls show that. They believe Liz Truss to twist and turn more than a twisty turny thing - again see the polls.
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
In all of this I rejoice Johnson has gone and am pleased with Liz Truss, not least because she will get a hearing and over the next two years may just give the conservatives a listening to
It is far too early to triumph a Labour 2024 win
I'm not even doing that. My point is simple - the Tories have built a massive problem for themselves, and so far Truss is making it worse. They can't even brand Starmer "boring" any more - Truss is even worse. The "two soups" meme of her curtseying keeps doing the rounds on social media. She has biiiiig problems, and a supposed "aha!" from Mark Harper is not going to turn that around.
So you think twitter is a reliable source of opinion
Your views are entirely consistent with your politics but I simply reject your anti Truss narrative, Johnson yes but Truss no
It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the public think. And they dislike her a lot according to the polls. That is what I am basing this on, not Twitter.
There have been about two polls since she became PM, and exactly zero polls since she did anything as PM.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
You said "Harper caught him on the hop" having called out "misrepresentation by Starmer". This is wrong - again and very simply there is no issue on which this government can call out the opposition for "misrepresentation" even if it IS misrepresentation and they point at it.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Did you watch the exchange and yes Harper did catch him on the hop
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
Yes, I've gone back to find it. It isn't bluster. The public believe this government to be untrustworthy liars - all the polls show that. They believe Liz Truss to twist and turn more than a twisty turny thing - again see the polls.
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
In all of this I rejoice Johnson has gone and am pleased with Liz Truss, not least because she will get a hearing and over the next two years may just give the conservatives a listening to
It is far too early to triumph a Labour 2024 win
I'm not even doing that. My point is simple - the Tories have built a massive problem for themselves, and so far Truss is making it worse. They can't even brand Starmer "boring" any more - Truss is even worse. The "two soups" meme of her curtseying keeps doing the rounds on social media. She has biiiiig problems, and a supposed "aha!" from Mark Harper is not going to turn that around.
So you think twitter is a reliable source of opinion
Your views are entirely consistent with your politics but I simply reject your anti Truss narrative, Johnson yes but Truss no
It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the public think. And they dislike her a lot according to the polls. That is what I am basing this on, not Twitter.
Which post her becoming PM polls are you referencing
She has not been in the job a week yet
If she is not polling better by next summer then that may be a concern but for now I am not expecting a poll bounce
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
We definitely need to cut spending but again, where does the growth come from?
The problem is not exactly the total amount of spending, but the very poor return we get from this spending. The well known example is that the projected cost of HS2 is over thirty times per km the cost of the equivalent French TGV Nord. The cause of this problem is that the government does not have sufficient expertise, either in house or at reasonable consultancy fee prices. This is a problem across the civil service: another example is that the cost of tax collection, while sharply reduced from 3% of revenue a few years ago, is still substantially more than our competitors. The longest tax code in the world is a miserable record to hold.
The public sector does not offer its services at efficient prices, and the private sector is equally expensive. In order to reduce costs, the public sector needs to develop and renew expertise it has mostly lost or never had, and in the short term that means investment, not cuts. More cuts, especially the across the board, budget cuts the Tories propose, simply weaken the capacity of the state still further. The UK needs to build up its administrative capacity, for example by strengthening the civil service college, so that the public sector can be a better, more informed, consumer of services offered by the private sector and at the same time to develop its arbitration functions, especially in natural monopolies. It is also time to recognise that QUANGOs are not always the answer to administrative failure.
Radical solutions are now needed, and an ideological preference for either public or private sector does not actually solve the problem. Without major reform of administration, including the constitution, the UK will continue its national decline. No tier of local government: Local, national or UK level is functioning well, and that is the root of much our economic malaise and political frivolity. We have more PMs alive at present, because even the central office of state can not deal with the national crisis without major reform.
One problem is lack of competition in many areas of government contracting. Very often it is political thing that Big Corp X must get contract Y, because they’ve had the previous contract Z.
I’ve mentioned the Spearfish torpedo update previously - the short version was that some people nearly got fired for coming up with a cheaper and better way to do something.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
The Monarchy (I originally wrote Queen!) differentiates them from the USA. It's right there on the money. Anything which does that is good. The role of Governor General is a different matter. As Australia would also attest.
How much do the windfall chasers want to excess tax BP this year?
We've established that you don't care what their accounts say their profit or loss is, so you presumably have an idea of how many billions of pounds extra you think they just ought to pay
The Truss plan imposes a double last year cap until at least 2024. Not that the price of energy is capped, merely the amount that can be charged. The bailout is the government taking our money to guarantee these excess profits for 2 years.
So "how much" is back to projections. How much subsidy will the UK government provide to these energy companies over that period? Charging them a percentage to allow them to keep the extra £ is good business - especially when other countries are being much harsher.
Most of that money is going to foreign energy companies. You want to claw it back from Shell and BP. So you want to disadvantage British energy companies and make the UK a significantly less attractive place for them to operate.
Who do you want to invest in our future energy infrastructure?
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
Australia is more likely than Canada or New Zealand, in Canada too every province has to approve a change to the constitution. Though even in Australia one poll last year had keeping the monarchy 6% ahead with Coalition voters backing the monarchy and Labor and Green voters a republic. In Australia the divide is on party lines as that shows, Labor PM Albanese is a republican who will likely call another referendum in a few years, Coalition and Liberal leader and Leader of the Opposition Dutton though is a staunch monarchist.
Jamaica will likely follow Barbados and become a Republic within the Commonwealth but realistically Charles is not going to keep any Commonwealth realms beyond the white Commonwealth which have populations still mainly of white British origin
How much do the windfall chasers want to excess tax BP this year?
We've established that you don't care what their accounts say their profit or loss is, so you presumably have an idea of how many billions of pounds extra you think they just ought to pay
What does Liz Truss think is the right level for a windfall tax? The answer used to be zero, until Rishi Sunak imposed one. What is it now? As with George Bernard Shaw's dining companion, the principle has been conceded, now it is just haggling about the price.
The right level of tax is the one that brings in the most revenue and leads to the most growth. I don't care if any tax goes up or down providing it has good outcomes. I have no idea how anyone thinks you can simply declare X% as the right level and not even think about the effects. Frankly if you don't think about the effects your preferred tax level is an inane as your favourite colour.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I think that’s a really unfair assessment. I suspect that decision was made before Truss took office re accompanying the new sovereign and it’s designed to show continuity in political leadership as well as the Crown. It doesn’t sound like she’s going to be having any kind of leading role anyway.
Well bollocks to that unless you think we are an actual monarchy, because how does a decision get made on behalf of the PM that she doesn't have the power to unmake? And if she is in a subordinate role that's worse. This is a mistake.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I think that’s a really unfair assessment. I suspect that decision was made before Truss took office re accompanying the new sovereign and it’s designed to show continuity in political leadership as well as the Crown. It doesn’t sound like she’s going to be having any kind of leading role anyway.
Well bollocks to that unless you think we are an actual monarchy, because how does a decision get made on behalf of the PM that she doesn't have the power to unmake? And if she is in a subordinate role that's worse. This is a mistake.
She is perfectly entitled to unmake it. But I don’t think it is a mistake to attend.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
I think that’s a really unfair assessment. I suspect that decision was made before Truss took office re accompanying the new sovereign and it’s designed to show continuity in political leadership as well as the Crown. It doesn’t sound like she’s going to be having any kind of leading role anyway.
Well bollocks to that unless you think we are an actual monarchy, because how does a decision get made on behalf of the PM that she doesn't have the power to unmake? And if she is in a subordinate role that's worse. This is a mistake.
She is perfectly entitled to unmake it. But I don’t think it is a mistake to attend.
Well, it is. This is ceremonial stuff and the very strong convention is LOTO gets equal billing. If he isn't going she shouldn't.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
Sadly, these companies have a long history of operating outside the normal workings of the British economy, as, effectively, part of the State. It's not normal to accept billions of write downs because the Government wants to stop them operating in a particular country either, but it happened. What matters is a route toward a sustainable, profitable and growing future.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Excellent news. Anything that helps to keep it in the ground gets my vote. The underlying cause of the energy crisis has been insufficient urgency in the development of renewables, and anything that helps push progress on that front is a good thing. Hydrocarbons should be exploited only when necessary, not squandered as they have been on providing unsustainably cheap energy thus hindering the development of clean alternatives.
Again., stupidly short sighted. Part of the reason for the current energy crisis is that we decided to cut back on oil and gas production long before we could ever have sufficient renewables to fill the gap and so have to rely on imports.
Stanislaw Lem, the great Polish Sci-F writer once wrote a story about a king who wanted all his subjects to become amphibians and so, to make them develop gills he started to raise the water level in his country by an inch a year. He couldn't understand it when all his subjects drowned.
Your policy is much the same. Wishing it would be any other way doesn't change reality.
If you don't understand why renewables would have been developed more quickly if the price of fossil fuels had reflected their finite nature and the environmental damage they cause, then you don't know the first principles of economics.
And if you don't understand how much the continued use of fossil fuels has subsidised the development of renewables and provided breathing space for their development then you don't understand the energy sector.
You are like a priest telling an old lady out in the snow that suffering is good for the soul and no matter if they freeze to death at least they have more chance of getting into heaven.
Comments
We are way too accepting of mega business, including Amazon, Facebook, Google etc paying far less tax than SMEs and even bigger domestic companies are paying. It is just unfair and pushes up taxes for everyone else.
Its also ludicrous that all the argument is on increasing (already at record percentage levels overall ) the tax take rather than looking at cutting government expenditure . I have worked in the public sector and can tell you it wastes money by the billions on crap vain stuff
https://www.economist.com/international/2022/09/09/some-of-the-new-kings-realms-may-become-republics
Australia: likely
Canada: impossible
NZ: confused
The state is bloated, but it's bloated mainly because of a combination of external factors beyond the Government's control, and the colossal burden of caring for an increasingly clapped out populace (principally because the country is full of old people, but also because far too many of us are very fat.) Since the Government's core vote consists of fat old people, it won't cut support for them and it won't tax them more either, so it will just borrow and borrow and borrow for as long as people are willing to lend it more money. I don't particularly relish this predicament either, but I don't think anything short of a boycott by the state's lenders or the wholesale disenfranchisement of the OAP population is going to change anything significantly.
I think the answer is to move away from company tax and towards a revised sales tax, so all of their transactions pay something. Apply the same to SMEs and it levels the playing field and stimulates the right sort of growth.
The growth comes from lower taxes, falling energy bills, and incentives for companies to invest in the UK rather than elsewhere.
There’s also an argument brewing in the background over City regulation, with government and BoE disagreeing over reserve requirements. If the government wins, there will be a ‘Big Bang 2’.
This government are liars. The public are very clear about that. They do not trust them. Liz "no bailouts" Truss is a liar. The public are very clear about that. So there is zero political gain for a party rightly judged to be liars to try and attack the probity of the opposition.
The politics is clear. Not only have the government said no to the energy companies having to contribute to the bill, the "bailout" allows them to continue to rack up excess profits which they get to keep, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
I am not blustering and exaggerating. This is politically untenable and grossly stupid. The government starts with a -15 poll rating and is doing itself further damage with this line which we know they will have to reverse later.
Ongoing excess profits which are literally paid for by the taxpayer-funded cap is not tenable.
Maybe watch it rather than bluster the point
There are people with the data and tools to have a stab at that, but I'm not one of them. But bear in mind that those who are calling for windfall taxes to be part of the response are doing so because they want to leave less mess for the future. In a different way, the same goes for those wanting to leave more hydrocarbons in the ground for longer.
Tax take as a percentage of income is at a all time high after 12 years of tory government -
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
When discussing the make up of the cabinet the other day I did point out how so many of them had made fortunes in financial services. All hail our money changing masters!
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
So no, a minister is not going to hoist Starmer or anyone else on their own petard by saying "aha, that is misleading and disingenuous". Because they have zero political capital to make such a charge stick.
This is politics. Your lot are understandably seen to have no credibility. The policies they are pursuing are massively unpopular even amongst their own remaining voters. And they have already laid down a marker of "we will do the opposite of what we say" after less than a week in office.
Throwing the opposition briefly off guard is a long way from winning an argument and finding support. As you well know.
Stanislaw Lem, the great Polish Sci-F writer once wrote a story about a king who wanted all his subjects to become amphibians and so, to make them develop gills he started to raise the water level in his country by an inch a year. He couldn't understand it when all his subjects drowned.
Your policy is much the same. Wishing it would be any other way doesn't change reality.
Going back to an earlier comment of mine, there can be a massive time-lag between a decision and its effect. In the case of pensions (or to take another big issue, housing), the time-lag is measured in decades.
People have not behaved frugally in recent years.
It is far too early to triumph a Labour 2024 win
I fully admit I could be totally wrong but I see no signs of it yet.
Charles on the other hand seems to have stepped up to the plate magnificently.
Brexit is now being run by a clique of metropolitan libertarian privately educated financiers. Its just what the people of Hartlepool, Stoke and Brixham had in mind to be rid of.
So it is very far from "the same thing".
It truly does feel like a 90s throwback where Redwood won and stuffed the cabinet with the likes of Theresa Gorman. We can't quite believe they are in office, we still remember the disastrous previous government, and now we're being told with sneering disdain that we have to pay for Shell and BP to pay bumper bonuses AND should be appreciative of it.
It is the Martin Lewis, Lib Dem, Labour Truss Plan - or for those who like a good acronym, this is the MALLUT we are taking to this problem - it looks like our political establishment will soon rubber stamp it so it can quickly get to work saving lives - once the opposition amendment to extend windfall tax is voted down. If indeed it is, maybe not.
I was cheerleading for this freeze. I’m not so sure now after reading those responses to it, and reading about the other good ideas which are out there.
For me, the right plan has to first answer the question Ydoethur posed on PB - what’s is a standard household or business? Liz Truss solution is built around that “standard” so is largely a one size fits all approach. Not very agile or VFM thinking like that is it?
There is a less expensive, much better targeted to where it’s needed, and actually largely pays for itself option we can take. It’s called a variable price cap and will go further in lowering the bills for the poorest, where simply put, cost of energy per unit goes up the more energy a person uses. This link sold it to me
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/A-Variable-Energy-Price-Cap.pdf
So I am no longer a supporter of the needlessly expensive freeze plan of this government, needlessly expensive because it’s not the only option we have to take, it’s not even the best option imo.
We can wield this MALLUT in haste, and have plenty of time to regret it.
Personally I would have taken the shares of the Stanlowe refinery for free rather than bail out the crooks that own it with tax payer money. State owned but private run. There are similar arguments with investment in gas drilling. Cost of finance is simply becoming too high, so we’re leaving export revenue on the table because of
dogma. And now we see worse than that of course.
At the same time of course we need to ramp up North Sea renewables, Severn tidal, insulation, roof top solar and storage. But perhaps the anti fossil fuel gang would care to explain how they will run their second hand cars if there is no oil. And how they will heat their inefficient houses without gas or heating oil (heat pumps chuckle).
The answer to these questions is time. We need time to replace the ICE vehicle fleet with EVs. And for the technology and scale to improve on electric energy to heating (whether heat pumps, hydrogen, molten salt, biogas or whatever).
Elon Musk no less, the high prince of renewable energy, said recently that stopping using hydrocarbons now would lead to civilisation collapse and we need for now to keep investing.
But to be honest I think the Government is screwed whatever they do. There best bet in the long term politically would be to lose a GE as soon as possible and watch whilst Starmer is left trying to solve a problem that has been decades in the making - and not the responsibility of any one Government - and for which there is no painless answer. Let him impose his additional windfall tax and then see how little it brings in. I don't say that in any way in a gloating manner. I rather like Starmer and would not be any more scared of him being PM than I am of Truss. I just think this current problem is insoluble in the short term and risks us doing massive long term damage if we take the wrong actions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
All these companies’ global effective tax rates are available online.
We've established that you don't care what their accounts say their profit or loss is, so you presumably have an idea of how many billions of pounds extra you think they just ought to pay
"too little" - a cap that is double last winter's bills where she is bailing out the energy companies and not us, with our money
"too late" - the windfall tax that will come
"sneeringly" - she made JRM energy minister.
Nor can anyone say for definite what her big bailout plan is. We had a few hours of debate in the Commons. With the speaker incandescent that no detail had been released. Then word circulated about the Queen. And politics stopped.
If it turns out that she will be using a combination of energy company excess profits and borrowing and money saved from not cutting taxes to hand money out to the people that need it, I will say "I was wrong". That hasn't happened. Has it.
I have been paying a bit more than I need to and have run up a £200-£300 surplus, but my calculations are that I could see a reduction of £40 in my monthly bill in October. I am going to continue to try to save energy, but I don't really have much of an incentive.
Your views are entirely consistent with your politics but I simply reject your anti Truss narrative, Johnson yes but Truss no
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/london-endings-8d777d6d47e
The public sector does not offer its services at efficient prices, and the private sector is equally expensive. In order to reduce costs, the public sector needs to develop and renew expertise it has mostly lost or never had, and in the short term that means investment, not cuts. More cuts, especially the across the board, budget cuts the Tories propose, simply weaken the capacity of the state still further. The UK needs to build up its administrative capacity, for example by strengthening the civil service college, so that the public sector can be a better, more informed, consumer of services offered by the private sector and at the same time to develop its arbitration functions, especially in natural monopolies. It is also time to recognise that QUANGOs are not always the answer to administrative failure.
Radical solutions are now needed, and an ideological preference for either public or private sector does not actually solve the problem. Without major reform of administration, including the constitution, the UK will continue its national decline. No tier of local government: Local, national or UK level is functioning well, and that is the root of much our economic malaise and political frivolity. We have more PMs alive at present, because even the central office of state can not deal with the national crisis without major reform.
Shell makes 92% of its earnings outside the UK
BP makes 90% of its earnings outside the UK (I only found this one out this morning from the BBC)
Those UK earnings are already taxed at 65% (I saw someone quoted 69% but I think that is wrong)
So how much are you going to make from increasing those taxes?
In support of your argument though, I am not sure my investment suppression argument works for BP and Shell as they do bugger all in the UK anyway.
So "how much" is back to projections. How much subsidy will the UK government provide to these energy companies over that period? Charging them a percentage to allow them to keep the extra £ is good business - especially when other countries are being much harsher.
NY Times blog
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Even the more enlightened US groups are getting there.
Assuming multinationals spend all their time conspiring to cook up whizzy tax schemes is like assuming Brussels bureaucrats spend their hours conspiring to straighten our bananas. It’s populist.
What happens if you're on a good salary today, but lose your job (or your business goes bust) due to recession next month? How responsive would such a policy be?
What about student houses? Are students rich (if supported by parents) or poor (if living on loans)?
What about middle income pensioners? Will they be content to pay more for their energy or will they economise in such a way that's detrimental to their health?
Will it act as a marginal rate of tax trap, i.e. disincentivise work. Would a person working four days a week decide not to work a fifth day because it would move them into a new rate of "energy tax" (higher cap).
Ultimately a price cap based on household income functions as another form of graduated income tax, with all the associated problems with that, including a high administrative burden.
A much simpler way to do things would be to graduate the cost of energy. The first x mwh are charged at £lower rate and the second x mwh are charged at £higher rate. Gear it so that it encourages a 15% reduction in energy usage - people can be more than comfortable just heating one room, taking shorter showers, etc.
TL;DR there should be two price caps, a low rate for ordinary use covering about 85% of normal use, and then a tax til the pips squeak higher rate for additional energy use to stop the "heating on full blast in my t shirt and shorts in jan" brigade.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1568626055635734528?s=20&t=xIL-1Ofs3MkUiSYftP0GCw
https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1567952875405590528?s=20&t=xIL-1Ofs3MkUiSYftP0GCw
So I understand the Cummings argument that Whitehall needs to be smashed. Its just "and replaced by what" was never more than some crayon drawings.
Precisely what level of profit is acceptable?
She has not been in the job a week yet
If she is not polling better by next summer then that may be a concern but for now I am not expecting a poll bounce
I’ve mentioned the Spearfish torpedo update previously - the short version was that some people nearly got fired for coming up with a cheaper and better way to do something.
The role of Governor General is a different matter. As Australia would also attest.
Who do you want to invest in our future energy infrastructure?
the constitution. Though even in Australia one poll last year had keeping the monarchy 6% ahead with Coalition voters backing the monarchy and Labor and Green voters a republic. In Australia the divide is on party lines as that shows, Labor PM Albanese is a republican who will likely call another referendum in a few years, Coalition and Liberal leader and Leader of the Opposition Dutton though is a staunch monarchist.
Jamaica will likely follow Barbados and become a Republic within the Commonwealth but realistically Charles is not going to keep any Commonwealth realms beyond the white Commonwealth which have populations still mainly of white British origin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Simon
The Governor General of New Zealand is also of Maori descent
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Kiro
'I said to Boris it's the club that no-one wants to join but you never get to leave,' he tells
@bbclaurak
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1568875143954399233
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
You are like a priest telling an old lady out in the snow that suffering is good for the soul and no matter if they freeze to death at least they have more chance of getting into heaven.