The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Replace your bogus "bad mother monkey" story with this (which I learned only yesterday)
"Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants"
"Mouse pups — and even the offspring's offspring — can inherit a fearful association of a certain smell with pain, even if they have not experienced the pain themselves, and without the need for genetic mutations. "
YOU CAN INHERIT, FROM YOUR PARENTS, EVEN GRANDPARENTS, A SHUDDERING FEAR OF SOMETHING STRANGE THAT HAPPENED TO THEM, NOT YOU
Extraordinary. The ramifications are endless, and creepy as hell. Good for someone trying to write spooky stories, tho
I have seen here - does he say he is a creationist? He says
"people on one side of this dispute tend to misrepresent the other side. Rational scientists who are doubtful about Darwinism are abused. And expressions such as 'Creationism' are used to suggest that a complex, nuanced position is in fact a crude Hillbilly superstition."
and
"I am sure some supporters of ID do so for tactical reasons, and actually believe (but keep quiet about their belief) that the Genesis account of the creation of the world is literally true, and is an accurate and factual description of events - that the Earth was made in six days and is only a few thousand years old. This I, and many other Christians, do not agree with. I think the scientific evidence on the age of the planet simply contradicts this view."
Looks like a lot of waffle. If hes not a creationist I'm not sure what position he does hold that he would need to get offended on a creationists behalf about.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
How much do we import? How much control do we then have? CO2 for example, how dependent are we on supplies from EU? So how nice do we have to be to them to stop them playing hard ball?
???? My proposal vastly would decrease our reliance on others.
Yes. I like your proposal.
I was adding basis for the sense of it.
CO2 supplies largely sold for example from fertiliser factories, but other producers of CO2 as by product release it into the atmosphere.
Could have done better Lessons must be learned Updated frameworks and memorandums.
---------
In reality, regulators were naive and incompetent (not simply could have done better), no accountability (so why will the lessons be learnt), its being whitewashed and forgotten.
Wait until the regulators start arguing among themselves, over who’s going to be responsible for shutting down the NFT ‘sticker book’ company who’s sending several hundred million the way of the Premier League, for ‘image rights’ to their scam.
Somebody who runs the Regulatory Affairs Department of a financial institution has used Sorate as an example of money laundering operation.
By replacing their name with Fraudsters Inc and FI are selling copies of album covers to perpetuate their fraud.
The Socio shares are another scam.
My expectation is that when we see another Derby then the shit hits the fan.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Another 5k week on week rise in cases in England. I think that's 4th day straight.
Burning through the schools isn't it as per JCVI led policy ? Just as long as it doesn't escape to Great Nan's slightly waning dose she had back in January...
Boris Johnson, when asked about Joe Biden's concerns over the Northern Ireland protocol, told reporters: "The president actually in our meeting yesterday, I don't think it came up at all. We had a meeting of over 90 minutes & it wasn't raised." cf. the White House readout: https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1440690141459222544/photo/1
Corrected
It is from an official communique but unless you were present the extent and importance is unknown
Another 5k week on week rise in cases in England. I think that's 4th day straight.
11th day straight of admissions down week on week. Case increase seems to be entirely in kids at the moment so we're getting some odd mini waves in schools since they returned. Yet to go up 2 weeks in a row.
I still haven't seen anybody explain how we went for a big what was it 6 or 8 energy companies and a handful of niche ones to over 70. This seems to just happened really quickly. Did something change in the law that encouraged it, or did a load of peoppe think they could be gas traders and chance their arm?
I don't know anything really about the sector, but it just doesn't seem like a good business to be in for a small company. You don't control the production, you are totally at the mercy of a market you can't control in anyway plus government caps prices, you have to deal with pain in the ass public. Doesn't seem like an easy buck opportunity.
As hinted at by @TOPPING above, the answer is price comparison websites, leading to a large reduction in customer acquisition costs.
Any trader knows that, if you’re selling futures, you need to hedge your supply, because otherwise a spike will kill you. So guess what, we have several dead energy companies.
Boris Johnson, when asked about Joe Biden's concerns over the Northern Ireland protocol, told reporters: "The president actually in our meeting yesterday, I don't think it came up at all. We had a meeting of over 90 minutes & it wasn't raised." cf. the White House readout: https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1440690141459222544/photo/1
Just how do you know that when it was a private meeting
There isn't even a contradiction between what Boris said and the WH read out. Only if you're a fanatic who thinks only the protocal can allow the people of NI peace and prosperity would there be a contradiction.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
The actual energy backbone - National Grid - is publicly owned, and there's zero competition in the domestic water supply market - so the likes of Severn Trent are as good as. As @MaxPB said all the energy companies are are brands, a website and a call centre attached.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
Part of peoples' choice of energy company includes a risk assessment of that company's viability and quality of business model. Or it should (I appreciate that most people just choose the one at the top of the USwitch list).
You talk, rightly, about moral hazard but what incentive is there for consumers to make more informed choices if they are themselves bailed out of poor decisions.
You're entirely right that there could be an element of caveat emptor here.
However it is or should be easier to expect the owners and managers of a company to do the due diligence for their own business than to expect consumees to do the same.
I still haven't seen anybody explain how we went for a big what was it 6 or 8 energy companies and a handful of niche ones to over 70. This seems to just happened really quickly. Did something change in the law that encouraged it, or did a load of peoppe think they could be gas traders and chance their arm?
I don't know anything really about the sector, but it just doesn't seem like a good business to be in for a small company. You don't control the production, you are totally at the mercy of a market you can't control in anyway plus government caps prices, you have to deal with pain in the ass public. Doesn't seem like an easy buck opportunity.
As hinted at by @TOPPING above, the answer is price comparison websites, leading to a large reduction in customer acquisition costs.
Any trader knows that, if you’re selling futures, you need to hedge your supply, because otherwise a spike will kill you. So guess what, we have several dead energy companies.
In their spare time, these idiots probably been buying my shovels the past month to buy NFTs......
That's interesting if it is price comparison sites. I have always wondered about these car insurance firms you have never heard that come back in those searches.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Lots of organisations were crap in the 60s and 70s Nigel. Look at how well the British motorcycle and car industries performed through the 60s under private ownership and management.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
Why was the Borisgraph spreading that fake news? What possible motivation could it have?
Replace your bogus "bad mother monkey" story with this (which I learned only yesterday)
"Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants"
"Mouse pups — and even the offspring's offspring — can inherit a fearful association of a certain smell with pain, even if they have not experienced the pain themselves, and without the need for genetic mutations. "
YOU CAN INHERIT, FROM YOUR PARENTS, EVEN GRANDPARENTS, A SHUDDERING FEAR OF SOMETHING STRANGE THAT HAPPENED TO THEM, NOT YOU
Extraordinary. The ramifications are endless, and creepy as hell. Good for someone trying to write spooky stories, tho
I understand they show pictures of snakes and spiders to new born humans, and they scream and yell and cry, fear of these things built into human DNA, part of our nature not nurture.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Ahh, British Telecom. Where you’d wait three months for them to connect a line, and you’d better be damn grateful that they deigned to serve you.
False correlation. In the 70s most things were slow and dirty and inefficient - cf today - regardless of whether they were public or private sector.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
I still haven't seen anybody explain how we went for a big what was it 6 or 8 energy companies and a handful of niche ones to over 70. This seems to just happened really quickly. Did something change in the law that encouraged it, or did a load of peoppe think they could be gas traders and chance their arm?
I don't know anything really about the sector, but it just doesn't seem like a good business to be in for a small company. You don't control the production, you are totally at the mercy of a market you can't control in anyway plus government caps prices, you have to deal with pain in the ass public. Doesn't seem like an easy buck opportunity.
Profits = Capitalism = Goes to shareholders Losses = Socialism = Goes to the state/Redistributed across the industry
Like much of our mixed economy its a rigged game favouring capital, sometimes more than just capitalism would.
Except that's not what's happening.
Get-rich-quickers are going bust, and the more solid ones seem to be being supported.
And we have robust customer protection measures in place.
Markets doing their job.
If energy prices hadnt spiked upwards the shareholders make good profits. If they spike downwards the shareholders make massive profits. If they spike upwards the shareholders pass the losses onto a mix of state, competitors and customers.
It is a simple con, that we allow, and pretend its capitalism. No wonder the rich get richer.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
It'd be even more reasonable to just tell customers that they bet on a low fixed price, lost and will now be transferred to the standard variable price of an alternate supplier (still covered by the government price cap).
Hard to see why taxpayers should be effectively subsidising the energy prices of people who signed up to below market prices with companies that couldn't deliver.
The same reason the government underwrites, to a certain extent, deposits held in banks who offer good interest rates on savings accounts. Because it stops the average voter losing out to sh!tty companies who go bust.
I still haven't seen anybody explain how we went for a big what was it 6 or 8 energy companies and a handful of niche ones to over 70. This seems to just happened really quickly. Did something change in the law that encouraged it, or did a load of peoppe think they could be gas traders and chance their arm?
I don't know anything really about the sector, but it just doesn't seem like a good business to be in for a small company. You don't control the production, you are totally at the mercy of a market you can't control in anyway plus government caps prices, you have to deal with pain in the ass public. Doesn't seem like an easy buck opportunity.
Profits = Capitalism = Goes to shareholders Losses = Socialism = Goes to the state/Redistributed across the industry
Like much of our mixed economy its a rigged game favouring capital, sometimes more than just capitalism would.
Except that's not what's happening.
Get-rich-quickers are going bust, and the more solid ones seem to be being supported.
And we have robust customer protection measures in place.
Markets doing their job.
If energy prices hadnt spiked upwards the shareholders make good profits. If they spike downwards the shareholders make massive profits. If they spike upwards the shareholders pass the losses onto a mix of state, govt and customers.
It is a simple con, that we allow, and pretend its capitalism. No wonder the rich get richer.
SHareholders of the firms that have gone el busto need to be wiped out before a single penny of taxpayer loss.
Oh dear - Biden cozies up to the UK - no more good headers on PB for him. I'm sure it was unintentional but the way the header is worded suggests a causal link between the bad polling and the meeting with Boris.
We've been flagging up Biden's unpopularity for a bit.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
It'd be even more reasonable to just tell customers that they bet on a low fixed price, lost and will now be transferred to the standard variable price of an alternate supplier (still covered by the government price cap).
Hard to see why taxpayers should be effectively subsidising the energy prices of people who signed up to below market prices with companies that couldn't deliver.
The same reason the government underwrites, to a certain extent, deposits held in banks who offer good interest rates on savings accounts. Because it stops the average voter losing out to sh!tty companies who go bust.
I've no problem with guaranteeing any pre-payments, but we should not be paying to meet below market price commitments of companies which have ceased trading - the average taxpayer, paying the average market rate, should not be paying for a random subset of the population to be able to keep paying less than everyone else.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
Why was the Borisgraph spreading that fake news? What possible motivation could it have?
I'm sure the Telegraph put it on the front page to provoke and roil the French (successfully), but I am not sure that it is entirely Fake News. This idea - France sharing the seat for the EU, in return for an EU army etc - has been floating around elite EU circles for a few years. See my link to Olaf Scholz (the probable next German chancellor) just below, espousing exactly this
And here
"If we take the EU seriously, the EU should also speak with one voice in the Security Council (...) In the medium term, the UN headquarters of France could be transformed into the headquarters of the EU. " German Vice-Chancellor Olaf Scholz in 11/2018
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
Yes, that goes with the idea that Germany will effectively run EU economic policy and France will effectively run EU military and foreign policy. So it makes some sense for the Franco-German axis that runs the EU but French nationalists will still dislike it
Prepare for the new Franco Kiwi alliance and love in with Beijing, NZ can barely be considered part of the Anglosphere now under Ardern, no wonder it is out of AUSUSUK.
Note New Zealand also the only nation in the Anglosphere Commonwealth realms still not to have agreed a FTA with post Brexit UK
You do talk tripe and I doubt you have even been to NZ
There is no way NZ or France are going to have a love in with China
And for you not even getting 'AUKUS' correct is quite remarkable
I still haven't seen anybody explain how we went for a big what was it 6 or 8 energy companies and a handful of niche ones to over 70. This seems to just happened really quickly. Did something change in the law that encouraged it, or did a load of peoppe think they could be gas traders and chance their arm?
I don't know anything really about the sector, but it just doesn't seem like a good business to be in for a small company. You don't control the production, you are totally at the mercy of a market you can't control in anyway plus government caps prices, you have to deal with pain in the ass public. Doesn't seem like an easy buck opportunity.
Profits = Capitalism = Goes to shareholders Losses = Socialism = Goes to the state/Redistributed across the industry
Like much of our mixed economy its a rigged game favouring capital, sometimes more than just capitalism would.
Except that's not what's happening.
Get-rich-quickers are going bust, and the more solid ones seem to be being supported.
And we have robust customer protection measures in place.
Markets doing their job.
If energy prices hadnt spiked upwards the shareholders make good profits. If they spike downwards the shareholders make massive profits. If they spike upwards the shareholders pass the losses onto a mix of state, govt and customers.
It is a simple con, that we allow, and pretend its capitalism. No wonder the rich get richer.
SHareholders of the firms that have gone el busto need to be wiped out before a single penny of taxpayer loss.
Yes of course, but limited liability makes it a rigged game. That could be resolved by requiring those companies to have regulatory capital tied up with OFGEM/UK govt to cover potential spikes in supply prices based on the number of customers they have and expected future market volatility.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
It'd be even more reasonable to just tell customers that they bet on a low fixed price, lost and will now be transferred to the standard variable price of an alternate supplier (still covered by the government price cap).
Hard to see why taxpayers should be effectively subsidising the energy prices of people who signed up to below market prices with companies that couldn't deliver.
My understanding is that this is what happens (I may be wrong, of course). Any payments (as I understood it) to the new supplier will be to cover credit balances of customers that are not recoverable from the old supplier.
My supplier has just gone under. My understanding is that we'll be switched on to the lowest variable rate of whoever the new supplier is (which will be more than the fixed deal we signed up to, but that deal is void as the supplier we signed the agreement with no longer exists). We will be free to, again, change supplier.
So, our costs will be higher than expected, but that's acceptable to me.* We could have stuck with a big supplier and paid more for years; as it is, our savings over the last decade from regular switches will more than outweigh the difference between what we pay over the next few months and what we signed up to.
* I do have sympathy for households just getting by who have done what they are told is the right thing, shopping around, getting a deal they can just budget for and are about to find that what they were promised will not be delivered.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Most cars were shit back then.
Nope = not the golf or the beetle.. or the Jag - even the 2cv..
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
It'd be even more reasonable to just tell customers that they bet on a low fixed price, lost and will now be transferred to the standard variable price of an alternate supplier (still covered by the government price cap).
Hard to see why taxpayers should be effectively subsidising the energy prices of people who signed up to below market prices with companies that couldn't deliver.
The same reason the government underwrites, to a certain extent, deposits held in banks who offer good interest rates on savings accounts. Because it stops the average voter losing out to sh!tty companies who go bust.
I've no problem with guaranteeing any pre-payments, but we should not be paying to meet below market price commitments of companies which have ceased trading - the average taxpayer, paying the average market rate, should not be paying for a random subset of the population to be able to keep paying less than everyone else.
What energy tariff will I move to when I transfer to ScottishPower?
You’ll move to our Basic Energy V2 tariff - this is an exclusive tariff created specifically for former customers of Tonik Energy and provides some of our most competitive prices. If you haven’t received them already, we'll send you details of your new tariff, including your prices and tariff terms, shortly.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
Why was the Borisgraph spreading that fake news? What possible motivation could it have?
They were quoting a French MEP, and the quote doesn't seem to have been denied.
Boris Johnson, when asked about Joe Biden's concerns over the Northern Ireland protocol, told reporters: "The president actually in our meeting yesterday, I don't think it came up at all. We had a meeting of over 90 minutes & it wasn't raised." cf. the White House readout: https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1440690141459222544/photo/1
Boris was asked explicitly about the "Northern Ireland Protocol".
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Ah, the Allegro, designed and first produced by the non-nationalised BL. We certainly showed those Trabant and Lada Johnnies what private enterprise could do!
I still haven't seen anybody explain how we went for a big what was it 6 or 8 energy companies and a handful of niche ones to over 70. This seems to just happened really quickly. Did something change in the law that encouraged it, or did a load of peoppe think they could be gas traders and chance their arm?
I don't know anything really about the sector, but it just doesn't seem like a good business to be in for a small company. You don't control the production, you are totally at the mercy of a market you can't control in anyway plus government caps prices, you have to deal with pain in the ass public. Doesn't seem like an easy buck opportunity.
As hinted at by @TOPPING above, the answer is price comparison websites, leading to a large reduction in customer acquisition costs.
Any trader knows that, if you’re selling futures, you need to hedge your supply, because otherwise a spike will kill you. So guess what, we have several dead energy companies.
In their spare time, these idiots probably been buying my shovels the past month to buy NFTs......
That's interesting if it is price comparison sites. I have always wondered about these car insurance firms you have never heard that come back in those searches.
I’m weirdly interested in knowing more about your shovel-selling business! You are of course correct, that selling the equipment and infrastrucre to speculators, is at least as good a business model as speculating itself.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the cap...
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
Yes, that goes with the idea that Germany will effectively run EU economic policy and France will effectively run EU military and foreign policy. So it makes some sense for the Franco-German axis that runs the EU but French nationalists will still dislike it
Do any of the other 25 countries in the EU get a say in how they are governed by their French and German masters?
Boris Johnson, when asked about Joe Biden's concerns over the Northern Ireland protocol, told reporters: "The president actually in our meeting yesterday, I don't think it came up at all. We had a meeting of over 90 minutes & it wasn't raised." cf. the White House readout: https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1440690141459222544/photo/1
Boris was asked explicitly about the "Northern Ireland Protocol".
Biden's Statement mentioned "Northern Ireland".
Not the same thing, Scotty.
Indeed. Biden in his answer speaks about the Good Friday Agreement not the NI Protocol.
The EU and it's fanatics and fantasists wish to conflate the two into being the same thing. But they're not.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
Part of peoples' choice of energy company includes a risk assessment of that company's viability and quality of business model. Or it should (I appreciate that most people just choose the one at the top of the USwitch list).
You talk, rightly, about moral hazard but what incentive is there for consumers to make more informed choices if they are themselves bailed out of poor decisions.
You're entirely right that there could be an element of caveat emptor here.
However it is or should be easier to expect the owners and managers of a company to do the due diligence for their own business than to expect consumees to do the same.
Without being able to examine the exact hedges that companies have made it is impossible for a consumer to judge, really.
I've avoided small energy companies in the past as some had very little trading record, but Bulb had/have a lot of customers and their billing seemed to be sorted, unlike some, so I fell into the trap.
Sadly, it looks like they will go.
Making sure your credit balance wasn't stupidly high was the main game to play.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Ah, the Allegro, designed and first produced by the non-nationalised BL. We certainly showed those Trabant and Lada Johnies what private enterprise could do!
Given the Unions at the time were behaving like the UK was behind the Iron Curtain the comparison is probably apt.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
Yes, that goes with the idea that Germany will effectively run EU economic policy and France will effectively run EU military and foreign policy. So it makes some sense for the Franco-German axis that runs the EU but French nationalists will still dislike it
Do any of the other 25 countries in the EU get a say in how they are governed by their French and German masters?
If they are in debt and need to borrow Germany tells them what to do and what spending to cut and taxes to raise, see Greece.
In terms of foreign policy France has effectively dictated the EU response to AUSUSUK already
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is our point. The govt will have to underwrite those companies' buying of gas in the spot market because the demand will increase by the number of customers who were with failed companies.
And as I said also, the danger will be that the govt won't be looking too closely at the accounts sent in by the remaining companies so the potential for if not fraud then maximisation of revenues is huge.
And plus as we (at least also @maaarsh) have pointed out - the consumers who went with CHEPE-E-Z-NRG instead of one of the more sensible suppliers are being subsidised by what will be huge fiscal transfers from taxpayers.
Edit: and as to your first point yes they will have used the futures market to hedge their forward purchases/exposure.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
It'd be even more reasonable to just tell customers that they bet on a low fixed price, lost and will now be transferred to the standard variable price of an alternate supplier (still covered by the government price cap).
Hard to see why taxpayers should be effectively subsidising the energy prices of people who signed up to below market prices with companies that couldn't deliver.
The same reason the government underwrites, to a certain extent, deposits held in banks who offer good interest rates on savings accounts. Because it stops the average voter losing out to sh!tty companies who go bust.
I've no problem with guaranteeing any pre-payments, but we should not be paying to meet below market price commitments of companies which have ceased trading - the average taxpayer, paying the average market rate, should not be paying for a random subset of the population to be able to keep paying less than everyone else.
What energy tariff will I move to when I transfer to ScottishPower?
You’ll move to our Basic Energy V2 tariff - this is an exclusive tariff created specifically for former customers of Tonik Energy and provides some of our most competitive prices. If you haven’t received them already, we'll send you details of your new tariff, including your prices and tariff terms, shortly.
That is exactly what happened to me in May when my energy provider failed and Ofgem appointed EDF to take over
They actually extended the same deal to the 31st August, then I signed a new 2 year fixed price deal with them at an increase of approx. 40% but it is for two years.
Furthermore the £60.59 owed to me was transferred to my EDF account and I received a further £50 credit for having solar panels
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Most cars were shit back then.
Nope = not the golf or the beetle.. or the Jag - even the 2cv..
Yes, the VW Beetle was a great British manufacturing success
I was not making that point as any idiot could see from the other examples.. except you.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
It'd be even more reasonable to just tell customers that they bet on a low fixed price, lost and will now be transferred to the standard variable price of an alternate supplier (still covered by the government price cap).
Hard to see why taxpayers should be effectively subsidising the energy prices of people who signed up to below market prices with companies that couldn't deliver.
The same reason the government underwrites, to a certain extent, deposits held in banks who offer good interest rates on savings accounts. Because it stops the average voter losing out to sh!tty companies who go bust.
I've no problem with guaranteeing any pre-payments, but we should not be paying to meet below market price commitments of companies which have ceased trading - the average taxpayer, paying the average market rate, should not be paying for a random subset of the population to be able to keep paying less than everyone else.
At the moment, anyone not on a fixed, hedged energy deal is being subsidised via the cap.
Right now, the govt is making a decision as to who subsidises them. The taxpayer, or future energy bill payers.
I think both of those solutions are wrong.
Ditch the cap. Then protect the vulnerable (keep the £20 uc uplift)
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the government imposed cap...
How do people get allocated a new company? Can the energy company refuse them? Seems like a crazy question now I see it written down, strange times.
It's random (At the customer's end), and I expect in normal times there's a bit of a bidding war to take over the failed companies' customers. But with the price cap and high wholesale prices - well the gov't has to dip into it's pockets. I was allocated to Scottish Power when Tonik went bust.
On Topic, how does this chart compare with previous Presidents. I assume they pretty much all fall out of favour at some point. Is 8 months faster or slower than normal?
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
In the era of nationalised industries our energy networks (gas, electricity) were "over-engineered", so that gas storage for example would cater for a "one-in-a-hundred-year" event. That philosophy was deprecated when competition and "market forces" came in. Now we have so-called energy suppliers which are really marketing vehicles. There is no longer any room for redundancy and everything is on fine margins with these suppliers offering fixed price contracts while buying the energy in fluctuating markets. Four years ago Centrica decommissioned the Rough storage facility, which was a depleted gas field in the North Sea. Now there's talk of bringing it back to life. Too late now for the current crisis. But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
Yes, that goes with the idea that Germany will effectively run EU economic policy and France will effectively run EU military and foreign policy. So it makes some sense for the Franco-German axis that runs the EU but French nationalists will still dislike it
Do any of the other 25 countries in the EU get a say in how they are governed by their French and German masters?
If they are in debt and need to borrow Germany tells them what to do and what spending to cut and taxes to raise, see Greece.
In terms of foreign policy France has effectively dictated the EU response to AUSUSUK already
Not really. Plenty of EU countries are hacked off with French posturing and tantrums. eg the Danes (eurosceptic, pro-Washington)
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
Yes, that goes with the idea that Germany will effectively run EU economic policy and France will effectively run EU military and foreign policy. So it makes some sense for the Franco-German axis that runs the EU but French nationalists will still dislike it
Do any of the other 25 countries in the EU get a say in how they are governed by their French and German masters?
If they are in debt and need to borrow Germany tells them what to do and what spending to cut and taxes to raise, see Greece.
In terms of foreign policy France has effectively dictated the EU response to AUSUSUK already
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Ah, the Allegro, designed and first produced by the non-nationalised BL. We certainly showed those Trabant and Lada Johnies what private enterprise could do!
Given the Unions at the time were behaving like the UK was behind the Iron Curtain the comparison is probably apt.
Yep, the one thing I've always associated with the countries behind the Iron Curtain is trade unions holding their management and governments to ransom.
Not sure if Red Robbo and his pals had anything much to do with product design.
'Brothers, are we agreed, 20 minute tea breaks and a square steering wheel for the Allegro? All in favour, say aye.'
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Most cars were shit back then.
Nope = not the golf or the beetle.. or the Jag - even the 2cv..
Yes, the VW Beetle was a great British manufacturing success
I was not making that point as any idiot could see from the other examples.. except you.
Wasn't the Beetle production line started/restarted by British military engineers during the early days of the occupation of Germany?
Could have done better Lessons must be learned Updated frameworks and memorandums.
---------
In reality, regulators were naive and incompetent (not simply could have done better), no accountability (so why will the lessons be learnt), its being whitewashed and forgotten.
Wait until the regulators start arguing among themselves, over who’s going to be responsible for shutting down the NFT ‘sticker book’ company who’s sending several hundred million the way of the Premier League, for ‘image rights’ to their scam.
Somebody who runs the Regulatory Affairs Department of a financial institution has used Sorate as an example of money laundering operation.
By replacing their name with Fraudsters Inc and FI are selling copies of album covers to perpetuate their fraud.
The Socio shares are another scam.
My expectation is that when we see another Derby then the shit hits the fan.
Football club bankruptcies were inevitable, once the PFA refused to budge an inch on players’ wages at the start of the pandemic. Hence Derby, and probably more on the way. And now a desparate scramble for cash from any dodgy source, to prop up the clubs.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the government imposed cap...
How do people get allocated a new company? Can the energy company refuse them? Seems like a crazy question now I see it written down, strange times.
Ofgem allocate the new supplier
It worked for me and I now have a 2 year fix from the 31st August with EDF and my credit balance was transferred in full to EDF even though my previous supplier had ceased trading
Could have done better Lessons must be learned Updated frameworks and memorandums.
---------
In reality, regulators were naive and incompetent (not simply could have done better), no accountability (so why will the lessons be learnt), its being whitewashed and forgotten.
Wait until the regulators start arguing among themselves, over who’s going to be responsible for shutting down the NFT ‘sticker book’ company who’s sending several hundred million the way of the Premier League, for ‘image rights’ to their scam.
Somebody who runs the Regulatory Affairs Department of a financial institution has used Sorate as an example of money laundering operation.
By replacing their name with Fraudsters Inc and FI are selling copies of album covers to perpetuate their fraud.
The Socio shares are another scam.
My expectation is that when we see another Derby then the shit hits the fan.
Football club bankruptcies were inevitable, once the PFA refused to budge an inch on players’ wages at the start of the pandemic. Hence Derby, and probably more on the way. And now a desparate scramble for cash from any dodgy source, to prop up the clubs.
Could have done better Lessons must be learned Updated frameworks and memorandums.
---------
In reality, regulators were naive and incompetent (not simply could have done better), no accountability (so why will the lessons be learnt), its being whitewashed and forgotten.
Wait until the regulators start arguing among themselves, over who’s going to be responsible for shutting down the NFT ‘sticker book’ company who’s sending several hundred million the way of the Premier League, for ‘image rights’ to their scam.
Somebody who runs the Regulatory Affairs Department of a financial institution has used Sorate as an example of money laundering operation.
By replacing their name with Fraudsters Inc and FI are selling copies of album covers to perpetuate their fraud.
The Socio shares are another scam.
My expectation is that when we see another Derby then the shit hits the fan.
Football club bankruptcies were inevitable, once the PFA refused to budge an inch on players’ wages at the start of the pandemic. Hence Derby, and probably more on the way. And now a desparate scramble for cash from any dodgy source, to prop up the clubs.
They should all go into liquidation. Level playing field then!
Football club bankruptcies were inevitable, once the PFA refused to budge an inch on players’ wages at the start of the pandemic. Hence Derby, and probably more on the way. And now a desparate scramble for cash from any dodgy source, to prop up the clubs.
Nah, the insolvency process began back in January 2020.
The issue for football clubs is the change to the Finance Act.
At times like these, when the sky is on fire and cracks are opening underneath you, it is important to remember that things could be worse and history suggests you will trade solvently again.
But right now, the news is bleak for everybody associated with Derby County and there is no point sugarcoating it.
Since Friday night’s memo about the coming apocalypse, when Derby announced the club and all the subsidiary companies intended to appoint administrators, The Athletic has been speaking to people with knowledge of the club’s financial position and they have not been very upbeat.
“It’s 50/50 they get liquidated,” said one source, while another said: “I can’t see how they get out of this — they’re fucked.”
The picture they painted in such depressing tones was one of a club that is worth less than nothing. Much less.
They said any prospective buyer would need to shell out more than £50 million simply clearing Derby’s debts before spending a penny on rebuilding the club and putting a competitive team on the park.
This is because the club has football creditors, who must be paid up to £10 million in full, as well as secured debt of £20 million owed to an American private equity firm and a tax bill of almost £30 million.
Derby declined to comment when contacted by The Athletic.
Until late last year, that last bill would have not have been such a cause for alarm to a bidder as it would have been added to the pile of unsecured debt and paid off with pennies in the pound.
HM Revenue and Customs has been complaining about that for years and the government’s post-pandemic need for rebalancing its books meant somebody in power finally heard the taxman’s pleas. The Finance Act 2020 gave tax debt preferential status in insolvency cases. At least two-thirds of Derby’s tax arrears must now be settled in full, just like the money they still owe to other football clubs.
Could have done better Lessons must be learned Updated frameworks and memorandums.
---------
In reality, regulators were naive and incompetent (not simply could have done better), no accountability (so why will the lessons be learnt), its being whitewashed and forgotten.
Wait until the regulators start arguing among themselves, over who’s going to be responsible for shutting down the NFT ‘sticker book’ company who’s sending several hundred million the way of the Premier League, for ‘image rights’ to their scam.
Somebody who runs the Regulatory Affairs Department of a financial institution has used Sorate as an example of money laundering operation.
By replacing their name with Fraudsters Inc and FI are selling copies of album covers to perpetuate their fraud.
The Socio shares are another scam.
My expectation is that when we see another Derby then the shit hits the fan.
Football club bankruptcies were inevitable, once the PFA refused to budge an inch on players’ wages at the start of the pandemic. Hence Derby, and probably more on the way. And now a desparate scramble for cash from any dodgy source, to prop up the clubs.
Its much harder for them to stiff HMRC now, which is a new change and will make liquidations more likely.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
Part of peoples' choice of energy company includes a risk assessment of that company's viability and quality of business model. Or it should (I appreciate that most people just choose the one at the top of the USwitch list).
You talk, rightly, about moral hazard but what incentive is there for consumers to make more informed choices if they are themselves bailed out of poor decisions.
You're entirely right that there could be an element of caveat emptor here.
However it is or should be easier to expect the owners and managers of a company to do the due diligence for their own business than to expect consumees to do the same.
If consumer credit is not protected, then there would surely just be a mass return to payment on receipt of bill (i.e. in arrears) rather than the fixed monthly direct debit. The only reason we pay fixed monthly direct debit is because it's cheaper (and credit is protected). It's cheaper to the consumer presumably because it enables the suppliers to receive some payment up front (credit balances) reducing the need to raise loans and also reduces the need to chase debt from consumers (as the debit balances are generally small, or even credit balances).
Alternatively, consumers would the incentivised to lie about consumption when signing up and deliberately maintain a debit balance.
So, the risk could be ostensibly passed to consumers, but presumably in ways that would just generally raise costs and prices for everyone.
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Why would that be the case? Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares. We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
When the EU had 2 seats (UK and France) it would have been very difficult to find a reasonable way forward. Now that it is just France they are going to come under a lot of pressure. This will tie them up in all sorts of knots due to be pro-EU but not when it comes to their Security Council seat!
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Are they? I thought they were wiping out the equity in those shonky providers and ensuring they (the customers) go to the bigger ones. Are they subsidising the bigger providers for the now more expensive gas they will have to buy in the spot market? I presume so.
Quite a fiscal transfer to the private energy companies if so and I would imagine there will be some shenanigans by those smart treasury depts to ensure the revenues are maximised.
If 'suppliers of last resort' are taking on unprofitable accounts as a service to ensure continuity of service, it seems reasonable for that service to be underwritten.
That's different to bailing out failed companies. The underwriting is going to a successful company offering a service not a failed one that screwed up.
It'd be even more reasonable to just tell customers that they bet on a low fixed price, lost and will now be transferred to the standard variable price of an alternate supplier (still covered by the government price cap).
Hard to see why taxpayers should be effectively subsidising the energy prices of people who signed up to below market prices with companies that couldn't deliver.
The same reason the government underwrites, to a certain extent, deposits held in banks who offer good interest rates on savings accounts. Because it stops the average voter losing out to sh!tty companies who go bust.
I've no problem with guaranteeing any pre-payments, but we should not be paying to meet below market price commitments of companies which have ceased trading - the average taxpayer, paying the average market rate, should not be paying for a random subset of the population to be able to keep paying less than everyone else.
At the moment, anyone not on a fixed, hedged energy deal is being subsidised via the cap.
Right now, the govt is making a decision as to who subsidises them. The taxpayer, or future energy bill payers.
I think both of those solutions are wrong.
Ditch the cap. Then protect the vulnerable (keep the £20 uc uplift)
How are they being subsidised? Those on the cap are higher costs than those who are on fixed contracts. It is essentially a fixed contract but at a set level.
The cap is the wrong thing to do, but to say it's a subsidy is a bit odd.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
You've never taken a train in Germany then?
We can (and should) have collective ownership (which comes in many forms) of natural monopolies.
We don't need to have adversarial industrial relations to go with it. I'd argue that we need to rebalance from capital to labour for the overall wellbeing of society (even ignoring the horrors that potentially lie ahead when productivity completely decouples from people), but there are better ways of going about it.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Why would that be the case? Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares. We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
Public ownership in Britain has always meant politicians and civil servants interfering with the production and the services. It has meant underinvestment because politicians have no interest in long term decision making only what will get them to the next election. As has already pointed out BR, BT and the like were deeply crap when they were in the public sector and have massively improved since privatisation.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Why would that be the case? Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares. We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
Because in the private sector you do a bad job and the business fails and you lose your job. In the public sector that doesn't occur.
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
In the era of nationalised industries our energy networks (gas, electricity) were "over-engineered", so that gas storage for example would cater for a "one-in-a-hundred-year" event. That philosophy was deprecated when competition and "market forces" came in. Now we have so-called energy suppliers which are really marketing vehicles. There is no longer any room for redundancy and everything is on fine margins with these suppliers offering fixed price contracts while buying the energy in fluctuating markets. Four years ago Centrica decommissioned the Rough storage facility, which was a depleted gas field in the North Sea. Now there's talk of bringing it back to life. Too late now for the current crisis. But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
My gas usage was 12.8 kwh and my electric 4.2 kwh last year. For a typical household the gas usage, in terms of KwH is still much higher - and still cheaper. If we could produce 100 GW of electricity via wind then not only would our current electricity consumption be entirely wind generated, but we could also substantially reduce our natural gas usage - as the "extra" could head into electric combis. And when it's not so windy, we still have a substantial wind production - but we just use natural gas as we do now.
Jeezo, more tartan than a shortbread factory. Certainly looking forward to Aberdeen's cultural renaissance, though would like more evidence of the original naissance.
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Why would that be the case? Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares. We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
Public ownership in Britain has always meant politicians and civil servants interfering with the production and the services. It has meant underinvestment because politicians have no interest in long term decision making only what will get them to the next election. As has already pointed out BR, BT and the like were deeply crap when they were in the public sector and have massively improved since privatisation.
Only met one FTSE100 boss. He was very explicit his time horizon for getting results was 3-6 months, and anything beyond that wasnt getting his influence behind it.
Short termism is a problem for UK plc whether public or private sector.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
I agree. Also what happened to the principle of caveat emptor. If an energy price is low, and therefore too good to be true, it probably is. Not sure why the taxpayer should bail out those who have been shopping around to get cheap energy, when they should have asked the obvious question: why is it so cheap?
Hardly cheap you numpty, just a bit lower than the highest prices.
Several days of admissions data just published. Shows some big declines happening. This would fit with the increase in cases being among the school kids.
Good, hopefully it'll encourage people to go to organised displays.
Honestly, I'm tired of the Guardian trying to be righteous on stuff that it either wouldn't have given a toss about prior to Brexit, or even worse, would have probably dismissed as an irrelevance or nuisance.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the cap...
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
Comments
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
.https://twitter.com/Elysee/status/1440580690865655816?s=20
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
Suggest boots and a 1.76m deep barrel.
Briefly.
I was adding basis for the sense of it.
CO2 supplies largely sold for example from fertiliser factories, but other producers of CO2 as by product release it into the atmosphere.
By replacing their name with Fraudsters Inc and FI are selling copies of album covers to perpetuate their fraud.
The Socio shares are another scam.
My expectation is that when we see another Derby then the shit hits the fan.
If you aren't a rival, capitalism isn't working, that doesn't mean you are China trying to nick everybodies IP.
(And no - my view above holds.)
Just as long as it doesn't escape to Great Nan's slightly waning dose she had back in January...
It is from an official communique but unless you were present the extent and importance is unknown
Any trader knows that, if you’re selling futures, you need to hedge your supply, because otherwise a spike will kill you. So guess what, we have several dead energy companies.
However it is or should be easier to expect the owners and managers of a company to do the due diligence for their own business than to expect consumees to do the same.
That's interesting if it is price comparison sites. I have always wondered about these car insurance firms you have never heard that come back in those searches.
https://www.lepoint.fr/europe/onu-l-allemagne-veut-que-la-france-cede-son-siege-au-conseil-de-securite-30-11-2018-2275513_2626.php
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1440345862488477699?s=19
If they spike downwards the shareholders make massive profits.
If they spike upwards the shareholders pass the losses onto a mix of state, competitors and customers.
It is a simple con, that we allow, and pretend its capitalism. No wonder the rich get richer.
And here
"If we take the EU seriously, the EU should also speak with one voice in the Security Council (...) In the medium term, the UN headquarters of France could be transformed into the headquarters of the EU. " German Vice-Chancellor Olaf Scholz in 11/2018
https://twitter.com/BMoon_bee/status/1440603755188162572?s=20
There is no way NZ or France are going to have a love in with China
And for you not even getting 'AUKUS' correct is quite remarkable
My supplier has just gone under. My understanding is that we'll be switched on to the lowest variable rate of whoever the new supplier is (which will be more than the fixed deal we signed up to, but that deal is void as the supplier we signed the agreement with no longer exists). We will be free to, again, change supplier.
So, our costs will be higher than expected, but that's acceptable to me.* We could have stuck with a big supplier and paid more for years; as it is, our savings over the last decade from regular switches will more than outweigh the difference between what we pay over the next few months and what we signed up to.
* I do have sympathy for households just getting by who have done what they are told is the right thing, shopping around, getting a deal they can just budget for and are about to find that what they were promised will not be delivered.
Edit: Yes, seems to be the case: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/what-happens-if-your-energy-supplier-goes-bust
https://www.scottishpower.co.uk/solr/tonik-energy
What energy tariff will I move to when I transfer to ScottishPower?
You’ll move to our Basic Energy V2 tariff - this is an exclusive tariff created specifically for former customers of Tonik Energy and provides some of our most competitive prices. If you haven’t received them already, we'll send you details of your new tariff, including your prices and tariff terms, shortly.
Biden's Statement mentioned "Northern Ireland".
Not the same thing, Scotty.
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed
ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
The EU and it's fanatics and fantasists wish to conflate the two into being the same thing. But they're not.
I've avoided small energy companies in the past as some had very little trading record, but Bulb had/have a lot of customers and their billing seemed to be sorted, unlike some, so I fell into the trap.
Sadly, it looks like they will go.
Making sure your credit balance wasn't stupidly high was the main game to play.
In terms of foreign policy France has effectively dictated the EU response to AUSUSUK already
And as I said also, the danger will be that the govt won't be looking too closely at the accounts sent in by the remaining companies so the potential for if not fraud then maximisation of revenues is huge.
And plus as we (at least also @maaarsh) have pointed out - the consumers who went with CHEPE-E-Z-NRG instead of one of the more sensible suppliers are being subsidised by what will be huge fiscal transfers from taxpayers.
Edit: and as to your first point yes they will have used the futures market to hedge their forward purchases/exposure.
They actually extended the same deal to the 31st August, then I signed a new 2 year fixed price deal with them at an increase of approx. 40% but it is for two years.
Furthermore the £60.59 owed to me was transferred to my EDF account and I received a further £50 credit for having solar panels
Right now, the govt is making a decision as to who subsidises them. The taxpayer, or future energy bill payers.
I think both of those solutions are wrong.
Ditch the cap. Then protect the vulnerable (keep the £20 uc uplift)
But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
"Denmark sides against EU, with Biden in AUKUS submarine row https://thelocal.dk/20210922/denmark-sides-against-eu-with-biden-in-aukus-submarine-row/
#AUKUS
ps: The most EU sceptical Danish Prime Minister since Denmark became member of EU in 1973 - according to http://Altinget.dk
https://twitter.com/LarsLoecke/status/1440696866220371978?s=20
I imagine there are similar sentiments in several east European countries, desperate to keep the US umbrella overhead
Not sure if Red Robbo and his pals had anything much to do with product design.
'Brothers, are we agreed, 20 minute tea breaks and a square steering wheel for the Allegro? All in favour, say aye.'
It worked for me and I now have a 2 year fix from the 31st August with EDF and my credit balance was transferred in full to EDF even though my previous supplier had ceased trading
The issue for football clubs is the change to the Finance Act.
At times like these, when the sky is on fire and cracks are opening underneath you, it is important to remember that things could be worse and history suggests you will trade solvently again.
But right now, the news is bleak for everybody associated with Derby County and there is no point sugarcoating it.
Since Friday night’s memo about the coming apocalypse, when Derby announced the club and all the subsidiary companies intended to appoint administrators, The Athletic has been speaking to people with knowledge of the club’s financial position and they have not been very upbeat.
“It’s 50/50 they get liquidated,” said one source, while another said: “I can’t see how they get out of this — they’re fucked.”
The picture they painted in such depressing tones was one of a club that is worth less than nothing. Much less.
They said any prospective buyer would need to shell out more than £50 million simply clearing Derby’s debts before spending a penny on rebuilding the club and putting a competitive team on the park.
This is because the club has football creditors, who must be paid up to £10 million in full, as well as secured debt of £20 million owed to an American private equity firm and a tax bill of almost £30 million.
Derby declined to comment when contacted by The Athletic.
Until late last year, that last bill would have not have been such a cause for alarm to a bidder as it would have been added to the pile of unsecured debt and paid off with pennies in the pound.
HM Revenue and Customs has been complaining about that for years and the government’s post-pandemic need for rebalancing its books meant somebody in power finally heard the taxman’s pleas. The Finance Act 2020 gave tax debt preferential status in insolvency cases. At least two-thirds of Derby’s tax arrears must now be settled in full, just like the money they still owe to other football clubs.
https://theathletic.co.uk/2837909/2021/09/21/derbys-admin-bomb-what-now-for-players-rooney-and-the-club-can-it-survive/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/22/bonfire-night-fireworks-70-down-due-to-brexit-and-supply-chain-crisis
Alternatively, consumers would the incentivised to lie about consumption when signing up and deliberately maintain a debit balance.
So, the risk could be ostensibly passed to consumers, but presumably in ways that would just generally raise costs and prices for everyone.
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1440700570227011603?s=20
Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares.
We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
The cap is the wrong thing to do, but to say it's a subsidy is a bit odd.
We can (and should) have collective ownership (which comes in many forms) of natural monopolies.
We don't need to have adversarial industrial relations to go with it. I'd argue that we need to rebalance from capital to labour for the overall wellbeing of society (even ignoring the horrors that potentially lie ahead when productivity completely decouples from people), but there are better ways of going about it.
Watch a Labour frontbencher decline to back Keir Starmer’s flagship rule change
As unions try to delay the reform package Starmer outlined yesterday, here’s one frontbencher’s response
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1440703277545316359?s=20
Short termism is a problem for UK plc whether public or private sector.
Several days of admissions data just published. Shows some big declines happening. This would fit with the increase in cases being among the school kids.
Honestly, I'm tired of the Guardian trying to be righteous on stuff that it either wouldn't have given a toss about prior to Brexit, or even worse, would have probably dismissed as an irrelevance or nuisance.