I don't think she's dim, starting with the fact that she's about to become Prime Minister while you and I are posting about politics on the internet.
She needs the votes of Conservative Party members, and Conservative Party members are dim. The way a non-dim person will do this is to make whatever promises you have to to get their votes, and not make any promises that aren't required to get their votes, and that's how she's playing it. Then once she gets elected she can do things that aren't stupid, subject to the need to appeal to the electorate at large, who are also dim.
About to become PM doesn't make her smarter than you or I. More ambitious, certainly.
Look at her cunning wheeze to cut public service pay outside London.
She genuinely thought that was a great idea.
Was it smart?
She also came up with the new Maths GCSE and is proud of it.
Anyone who thinks that was a good idea is so dense even Richard Burgon would look down on them, or is so wilfully ignorant that David Irving would blink.
What does the new Maths GCSE do ?
Nothing. That's the problem. It was designed to be more rigorous, but in practice is less so due to the way it has to be marked, and it doesn't set you up for further study because it doesn't cover the right topics.
To expand on m'learned colleague's answer...
It was hyped as a "big fat" GCSE. More topics were added, the questions were made harder. There used to be three versions of the exam, called Foundation, Intermediate and Higher, each covering a different range of likely final grades with an overlap between them. Intermediate was scrapped, which was the one centred on old grade C, new grade 4/5.
Trouble is that the damn kids insist on learning maths at roughly the same rate, so adding more and harder topics just means that a lot of the questions on the exam are wasted, with virtually everyone getting zero. So from a purely technical point of view, the exams do a worse job of sorting better and worse mathematicians. That, and the scrapping of intermediate has meant more kids doing the foundation tier. And GCSE maths has become more of a grim route march through topics (because the curriculum is now big and fat) which doesn't leave time to get seriously good at anything.
But if you look just at the documentation, the maths looks really hard, so job done.
To correct one minor point - it was not the Intermediate tier that was scrapped, it was actually the Foundation tier. The name was kept, but in practice the new Foundation tier is the old Intermediate tier (insofar as you can meaningfully copy the labels across from the old to the new).
So now, everyone is doing an assessment that we used to understand was too hard and therefore a complete waste of time for around 40% of the cohort...
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
I'm fixed this winter, every hot bath is going to feel extra good.
Boris takes more foreign holidays than @Leon. The Telegraph reports the Prime Minister has been filmed shopping in Greece, as per this video. That's his second in as many weeks, isn't it? Third if you count Chequers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731obOKdTr4
So what, even PMs are allowed a holiday. The Blairs used to spend most of August in Tuscany and the Camerons in Cornwall. Even May went walking in Switzerland and Brown forced himself to have a brief break in Southwold looking bored or with policy wonks in Cape Cod
There is some free time in his diary in September to go on holiday, I think? It's a great month to travel.
Good morning everyone. On this day back in 1945 I was seven and I remember being told by my mother that the war was finally, really, over and everything would be better.
Therefore this day back in 1945, my dad lost a tooth whilst out on his bike.
Whenever he smiles and I see the gap, I think of VJ Day...
At least Mrs C had not forgotten the servicemen out East. My dad was just out of his RN training establishment, and fully expecting to be sent out to the Indian or Pacific Oceans to maintain the very many anti-aircraft guns now needed on every ship within range of a kamikaze, of which he had heard plenty messdeck accounts. Very relieved chap.
My first Vicar, a man called Iain Marchant, was serving on a naval vessel in the Far East in 1945. He said that when the news was broadcast over the ship that Germany had surrendered, all the men shouted, 'So what?'
Boris takes more foreign holidays than @Leon. The Telegraph reports the Prime Minister has been filmed shopping in Greece, as per this video. That's his second in as many weeks, isn't it? Third if you count Chequers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731obOKdTr4
So what, even PMs are allowed a holiday. The Blairs used to spend most of August in Tuscany and the Camerons in Cornwall. Even May went walking in Switzerland and Brown forced himself to have a brief break in Southwold looking bored or with policy wonks in Cape Cod
There is some free time in his diary in September to go on holiday, I think? It's a great month to travel.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Add in the issue that we're supposed to be discouraging energy use because of environmental concerns.
Realise the issue is at supply level, UK energy demand is going to grow - and it should; energy use and standard of living go hand in hand. Couple this with the fact we need the UK's population to grow anyway to function better as an economy and well... Commission the MET office to look into the availability of all natural power sources - wind, solar, tidal that would produce the remainder of almost always 45 GW available power that needs filling with the current CCGT burn. Add in nuclear, gas and heck even a bit of coal As needs must. Solve for the lowest cost to the UK consumer, both business and domestic going forward. It's basically a multivariate linear programming optimisation problem that would churn out an answer. Oh batteries would be included as well - anyway solve this equation, then set out a plan to implement the solution paid for with long term bonds. As for the current bills whilst this is being built ? First up no help for higher rate taxpayers - taper out the support from 40k -> 50k. More help for 20k and UC. Gov't loans available for energy intensive small bus so they don't go under. A few more checks than Rishi's scheme. There'd likely be gaps with the wind use required - just fill this with gas - CCGT does have a place but there's no way on God's green earth it should be 60% of generation.
The problem isn't the medium/long term, though. We are finally moving towards some sort of consensus, a decade or so too late, what we should be doing about energy security.
It's the near term that's tough. The LibDem/Labour plan would cost around £30bn over six months. That's Covid furlough levels of expenditure.
That isn't financially sustainable for very long. Will the gas crisis be over by the spring ?
Once again Mike your statement that Truss's tax plans only benefit those paying IT is incorrect. Her plan is to zero rate power and to suspend the green levies. This benefits everyone who pays for their heating. Not by enough, of course, and it benefits the larger users more but it is not restricted to IT payers. Her other plans are to reverse the NI increase. This will mainly benefit the better paid because the lower paid have already been taken out of the increase by Sunak. She also has plans to reverse the increase in CT.
So far as I am aware she has not announced any plans re IT at all. She has indicated that those on benefits will need more help but been pretty vague about it.
I must take issue with the thread header. Aren't these proposals from Ed Davey, not Keir Starmer?
Such is the way of things. Labour don't have a policy. LibDems propose a policy. Labour steal the policy, then attack the LibDems as being Tories.
Then the Tories implement the policy. Because, you know, they are in power.
Though if you are just implementing someone else's policy, are you in power? Or just in office?
Point is, you get to choose what to do. If its a success, the voters never hear the Opposition bleating "but they stole our policy!" If it's not a success, they can hardly say "but they stole our shit policy!"
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Boris takes more foreign holidays than @Leon. The Telegraph reports the Prime Minister has been filmed shopping in Greece, as per this video. That's his second in as many weeks, isn't it? Third if you count Chequers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731obOKdTr4
So what, even PMs are allowed a holiday. The Blairs used to spend most of August in Tuscany and the Camerons in Cornwall. Even May went walking in Switzerland and Brown forced himself to have a brief break in Southwold looking bored or with policy wonks in Cape Cod
So we can add his comment made prior to his ousting that at a time of crisis it was vital for there to be continuity with the PM in charge of day to day matters to his long, long list of lies that you seem to swallow whole.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Which is fair enough. When would he be expected to go on holiday other than now? It can hardly be when Parliament is sitting, or during the conference season. He'd really be missing in action then.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Starmer but taking a holiday in holiday time is not one of them. That's as unreasonable as a certain poster on here who seemed to think I should give up my holiday time unpaid to do extra lessons.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Did he mention the knock on impact of lower inflation and hence lower govt spending in other areas as well as better economic stability generally?
To me these are key as to why its clearly the best policy, but perhaps not easy to get across in a short interview.
The summary of Ashcroft seems to be that these voters who gave "Boris" a vote in 2019 are now either going back to Labour or sitting on their hands.
I remain sceptical that Liz Truss and her tax-cutting, Thatcherite 2.0 economics are what these voters want. I actually think Labour now is probably as "in touch" as its been with them for some years, primarily because they are not concerned about Labour nationalising everything and saying goodbye to foreign policy.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Good point. But not all countries are going to be able to afford to do this, or want to do this.
Surely the UK has the most headroom to cap prices now with the largest increase in Europe. France would have the least ability as they've basically capped prices there at no increase at all
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
Realise the issue is at supply level, UK energy demand is going to grow - and it should; energy use and standard of living go hand in hand. Couple this with the fact we need the UK's population to grow anyway to function better as an economy and well... Commission the MET office to look into the availability of all natural power sources - wind, solar, tidal that would produce the remainder of almost always 45 GW available power that needs filling with the current CCGT burn. Add in nuclear, gas and heck even a bit of coal As needs must. Solve for the lowest cost to the UK consumer, both business and domestic going forward. It's basically a multivariate linear programming optimisation problem that would churn out an answer. Oh batteries would be included as well - anyway solve this equation, then set out a plan to implement the solution paid for with long term bonds. As for the current bills whilst this is being built ? First up no help for higher rate taxpayers - taper out the support from 40k -> 50k. More help for 20k and UC. Gov't loans available for energy intensive small bus so they don't go under. A few more checks than Rishi's scheme. There'd likely be gaps with the wind use required - just fill this with gas - CCGT does have a place but there's no way on God's green earth it should be 60% of generation.
OTOH an energy cap is a simpler sell.
Switching supplies, as you mention is largely happening, but it is a medium to long term switch. The short term problem is supply, demand and cost and there is no cheap way to deal with it.
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
Boris takes more foreign holidays than @Leon. The Telegraph reports the Prime Minister has been filmed shopping in Greece, as per this video. That's his second in as many weeks, isn't it? Third if you count Chequers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731obOKdTr4
So what, even PMs are allowed a holiday. The Blairs used to spend most of August in Tuscany and the Camerons in Cornwall. Even May went walking in Switzerland and Brown forced himself to have a brief break in Southwold looking bored or with policy wonks in Cape Cod
So we can add his comment made prior to his ousting that at a time of crisis it was vital for there to be continuity with the PM in charge of day to day matters to his long, long list of lies that you seem to swallow whole.
Good to know.
The PM can still be in charge even on holiday, we have telephones and Internet now you know.
Had the likes of you not insisted on ousting him he could also have provided more subsidies to those needing support with energy bills than Truss will do when she takes over
Sunak: rich, snake, out of touch, competent, trustworthy
Not to ramp Truss because I am firmly in the “unsure” camp. But the wooden/boring tags might be a simple consequence of the debates format not being her strength. There are anecdotes aplenty floating about that in person she’s quite personable. It’s perfectly possible that she can shift those tags after a few rounds on Holly and Phil and the like.
Meanwhile Snake / Backstabber are much harder tags to shift for Sunak and as for Rich…
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Which is fair enough. When would he be expected to go on holiday other than now? It can hardly be when Parliament is sitting, or during the conference season. He'd really be missing in action then.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Starmer but taking a holiday in holiday time is not one of them. That's as unreasonable as a certain poster on here who seemed to think I should give up my holiday time unpaid to do extra lessons.
And, of course, he'd be crucified if he took his kids out of school for a holiday in term time, as you well know.
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Good point. But not all countries are going to be able to afford to do this, or want to do this.
I assume that in Europe, more or less every country with the wherewithal to subsidise its energy prices this winter is going to do so, or else face the wrath of voters at the polls, or in gilet jaunes style protests.
So in this scenario, if energy consumption in Europe doesn't drop significantly (but supply already has), someone has to lose out.
A couple of possible answers... poorer non European countries can't keep the lights on this winter? Arab spring style protests in affected countries? Or will European countries ration energy internally to reduce demand, e.g. mandating temporary halts to heavy industry, reduced train timetables, etc?
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
The serious answer is that they're unlikely to do so. But it's a not unreasonable question.
We're basically talking about an attempt to buck a global market. Last time we tried that, George Soros made his fortune from the sidelines.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Did he mention the knock on impact of lower inflation and hence lower govt spending in other areas as well as better economic stability generally?
To me these are key as to why its clearly the best policy, but perhaps not easy to get across in a short interview.
He certainly pushed the knock-on effect as regards lower inflation, yes.
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
As long as Labour is largest party he can do that, if not the SNP are more influential in a hung parliament
Realise the issue is at supply level, UK energy demand is going to grow - and it should; energy use and standard of living go hand in hand. Couple this with the fact we need the UK's population to grow anyway to function better as an economy and well... Commission the MET office to look into the availability of all natural power sources - wind, solar, tidal that would produce the remainder of almost always 45 GW available power that needs filling with the current CCGT burn. Add in nuclear, gas and heck even a bit of coal As needs must. Solve for the lowest cost to the UK consumer, both business and domestic going forward. It's basically a multivariate linear programming optimisation problem that would churn out an answer. Oh batteries would be included as well - anyway solve this equation, then set out a plan to implement the solution paid for with long term bonds. As for the current bills whilst this is being built ? First up no help for higher rate taxpayers - taper out the support from 40k -> 50k. More help for 20k and UC. Gov't loans available for energy intensive small bus so they don't go under. A few more checks than Rishi's scheme. There'd likely be gaps with the wind use required - just fill this with gas - CCGT does have a place but there's no way on God's green earth it should be 60% of generation.
OTOH an energy cap is a simpler sell.
Switching supplies, as you mention is largely happening, but it is a medium to long term switch. The short term problem is supply, demand and cost and there is no cheap way to deal with it.
Here's hoping this tentative good news for the US will spread in your direction: "Many of the global prices for food, fuel and fertilizer that spiked when Russia invaded Ukraine have returned to their prewar levels, defying the most dire forecasts even as policymakers warn of the continued risk of famine and financial crisis in the developing world. . . . Wheat is now less expensive than when the war began. Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, hovers around its mid-February level of $97 per barrel. And the price of urea fertilizer, which almost doubled in the war’s first weeks, is back to its prewar level." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/13/food-fuel-lower-prices/
Now I understand, and the rest of the article emphasizes, that the strength of the US dollar makes it harder for much of the world, especially third world countries that are badly managed. But I think in the long run -- if these decreases persist or, even better prices drop still further, it will be, net, good for the world. Including Britain.
London is full of American tourists at the moment taking advantage of the exchange rate.
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
It would be very fishy if you had.
Not one of your best, sorry. To quote you teachers, 'must try harder'.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Which is fair enough. When would he be expected to go on holiday other than now? It can hardly be when Parliament is sitting, or during the conference season. He'd really be missing in action then.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Starmer but taking a holiday in holiday time is not one of them. That's as unreasonable as a certain poster on here who seemed to think I should give up my holiday time unpaid to do extra lessons.
And, of course, he'd be crucified if he took his kids out of school for a holiday in term time, as you well know.
They could always go on holiday without him, but that would seem a bit unfair on them unless there was a truly compelling reason. Which at the moment there isn't. I mean, what could he actually do? Make speeches? Rayner or Reeves could do that. Make policy? He's in Opposition, so he could make it (or, in this case, nick it from the Lib Dems) but not implement it. Hold the government to account? At the moment there seems to be no government, making that harder.
I'm reminded of when David Cameron was criticised for going on a scheduled visit to (I think) Rwanda during the 2007 floods. Everyone said he was 'missing in action.' Well, actually, he'd already visited the flood hit areas and urged the government to do more, with some effect as it forced Brown into doing the same. But with Brown in full honeymoon mode and frankly very little he could do, the criticism always struck me as rather unfair.
A PSCO confronted a woman for having a sticker saying "trans-ideology erases women" on their door.
@Fox_Claire Listen to whole of this. It's freaked me out. Furious too. An official from police explicitly says you can only express your views privately, lectures on need to be better informed re trans, when she spouts misinformation & deploys tears & threats. Coercive & bullying. For a sticker.
It's always disturbing when police officers don't actually understand the law that they're trying to enforce.
Seems pretty common though. And though this was a pcso rather than a full officer, they do not like to be contradicted one bit. Mild questioning of them does not help.
Just look at the lengths people have to go when they are wrong, like that chap who was given a warning for his tweets.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Which is fair enough. When would he be expected to go on holiday other than now? It can hardly be when Parliament is sitting, or during the conference season. He'd really be missing in action then.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Starmer but taking a holiday in holiday time is not one of them. That's as unreasonable as a certain poster on here who seemed to think I should give up my holiday time unpaid to do extra lessons.
Boris will also still be an MP when Parliament returns so cannot take a holiday then either. Boris also cannot announce any major new policy as that will be the role of the new PM next month
(1) proceed with Truss's idea of zero rating energy and suspending the green levies. It is crazy to make the curent pricing worse.
(2) Ensure that those on UC get a sufficient rise in benefits to cover the whole additional cost. Those who are not have to survive on the help Sunak has already given.
(3) Invest seriously in insulation to cut demand.
(4) Further time limited tax breaks to accelerate alternative supplies, especially wind, tidal and solar.
(5) Reverse the idiotic change in the cap to 3 months but have a borrowing facility available if energy suppliers are trapped supplying fuel below cost to maintain their economic viability.
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
And that is the correct line to take. And was in 2015...
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
It would be very fishy if you had.
Not one of your best, sorry. To quote you teachers, 'must try harder'.
If you meant 'your teachers,' you spelled it wrong.
If you meant 'you teachers,' I would remind you I am taking a break from teaching having finally got fed up of working for third rate scum like OFSTED and the DfE.
Either way, 0/10, see me at the end of the lesson.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Good point. But not all countries are going to be able to afford to do this, or want to do this.
The sweet spot is to have prices increase enough to encourage energy efficiency without cutting back on essential usage.
If there isn't a steep reduction on chavvy lighted decorations this Christmas then there will be plenty of people with money to spend.
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
It would be very fishy if you had.
Not one of your best, sorry. To quote you teachers, 'must try harder'.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Which is fair enough. When would he be expected to go on holiday other than now? It can hardly be when Parliament is sitting, or during the conference season. He'd really be missing in action then.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Starmer but taking a holiday in holiday time is not one of them. That's as unreasonable as a certain poster on here who seemed to think I should give up my holiday time unpaid to do extra lessons.
Boris will also still be an MP when Parliament returns so cannot take a holiday then either. Boris also cannot announce any major new policy as that will be the role of the new PM next month
Have I criticised him for it?
I would say however that when Parliament rises for the conference season it would be not merely sensible but positively helpful to his successor if he went on holiday then instead, and kept his mouth shut.
As his current family are not yet school age that wouldn't be a problem either.
Boris takes more foreign holidays than @Leon. The Telegraph reports the Prime Minister has been filmed shopping in Greece, as per this video. That's his second in as many weeks, isn't it? Third if you count Chequers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731obOKdTr4
So what, even PMs are allowed a holiday. The Blairs used to spend most of August in Tuscany and the Camerons in Cornwall. Even May went walking in Switzerland and Brown forced himself to have a brief break in Southwold looking bored or with policy wonks in Cape Cod
So we can add his comment made prior to his ousting that at a time of crisis it was vital for there to be continuity with the PM in charge of day to day matters to his long, long list of lies that you seem to swallow whole.
Good to know.
The PM can still be in charge even on holiday, we have telephones and Internet now you know.
Had the likes of you not insisted on ousting him he could also have provided more subsidies to those needing support with energy bills than Truss will do when she takes over
LOL stop whining. You are Ronnie Barker to Boris Johnson's John Cleese. For some reason - class, something else - you look up to him. You shouldn't.
He is a liar and he is lying to you and you should have the sense to know better.
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
And that is the correct line to take. And was in 2015...
Starmer doesn't have the same "weakness" criticism argument that Ed M had. Ed M seeming so weak let it appear that Nicola would walk all over him. Starmer doesn't have that
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
It would be very fishy if you had.
Not one of your best, sorry. To quote you teachers, 'must try harder'.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
To some extent yes. Demand will go down with capped prices (bear in mind they are still high, just not as extreme as uncapped prices), but less than if you don't cap. Difficulty is distinguishing between high prices driving beneficial demand reduction from prices so high you can no longer afford a basic need.
You need to strike the balance, but that balance likely requires a very big subsidy.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
I thought sally nugent appeared almost embarrassed she'd asked him about taking a holiday after he gave that answer.
I must take issue with the thread header. Aren't these proposals from Ed Davey, not Keir Starmer?
Such is the way of things. Labour don't have a policy. LibDems propose a policy. Labour steal the policy, then attack the LibDems as being Tories.
Then the Tories implement the policy. Because, you know, they are in power.
Though if you are just implementing someone else's policy, are you in power? Or just in office?
Point is, you get to choose what to do. If its a success, the voters never hear the Opposition bleating "but they stole our policy!" If it's not a success, they can hardly say "but they stole our shit policy!"
Quite (except on the last bit - they would, claiming you did it wrong). No party has a coherent ideology and no ideology has the policy answer to every problem.
As David Cameron said in the 2010 debates not everything labour did was bad, and theyd keep the good stuff.
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
As long as Labour is largest party he can do that, if not the SNP are more influential in a hung parliament
There remain scenarios where (a) the Tories win a majority or (b) the Tories are the largest party. In which case what Starmer thinks of the SNP doesn't matter.
In (b) the Tories problem is that no other party will work with them. So a minority lets cling on job may be short lived.
More realistic is (c) a Labour largest party or (d) Labour majority.
Whilst I still think "screw the SNP, they will fall into line" is the right approach for Starmer in the circumstance, it isn't a given any more. Scottish politics post Sindy is very different to pre-Sindy. ConLabLib are much of a muchness if you want independence. "You can't vote with the Tories" not the threat it once was.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Good point. But not all countries are going to be able to afford to do this, or want to do this.
The sweet spot is to have prices increase enough to encourage energy efficiency without cutting back on essential usage.
If there isn't a steep reduction on chavvy lighted decorations this Christmas then there will be plenty of people with money to spend.
Remember the two nations (longterm homeowner or not) issue. Is the price of your home frozen at what it was in 2000, or is it current rates? Half the country can absorb big energy price rises with minor irritation, the other half will be utterly throttled by them. And it's not simply correlated to income.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Good point. But not all countries are going to be able to afford to do this, or want to do this.
I assume that in Europe, more or less every country with the wherewithal to subsidise its energy prices this winter is going to do so, or else face the wrath of voters at the polls, or in gilet jaunes style protests.
So in this scenario, if energy consumption in Europe doesn't drop significantly (but supply already has), someone has to lose out.
A couple of possible answers... poorer non European countries can't keep the lights on this winter? Arab spring style protests in affected countries? Or will European countries ration energy internally to reduce demand, e.g. mandating temporary halts to heavy industry, reduced train timetables, etc?
Each country has a different profile and the UK was already amongst the most expensive pre crisis.
According to this paper for example in Denmark the energy component at the start of the year was just 38% of the cost (the rest distribution and taxes) whereas in Spain energy was 67% of the cost.
It seems reasonable to assume that different policy outcomes might result in those countries, Denmark might favour lowering taxes and Spain capping energy.
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Which is fair enough. When would he be expected to go on holiday other than now? It can hardly be when Parliament is sitting, or during the conference season. He'd really be missing in action then.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Starmer but taking a holiday in holiday time is not one of them. That's as unreasonable as a certain poster on here who seemed to think I should give up my holiday time unpaid to do extra lessons.
And, of course, he'd be crucified if he took his kids out of school for a holiday in term time, as you well know.
They could always go on holiday without him, but that would seem a bit unfair on them unless there was a truly compelling reason. Which at the moment there isn't. I mean, what could he actually do? Make speeches? Rayner or Reeves could do that. Make policy? He's in Opposition, so he could make it (or, in this case, nick it from the Lib Dems) but not implement it. Hold the government to account? At the moment there seems to be no government, making that harder.
I'm reminded of when David Cameron was criticised for going on a scheduled visit to (I think) Rwanda during the 2007 floods. Everyone said he was 'missing in action.' Well, actually, he'd already visited the flood hit areas and urged the government to do more, with some effect as it forced Brown into doing the same. But with Brown in full honeymoon mode and frankly very little he could do, the criticism always struck me as rather unfair.
It always is. A PM or LOTO visiting in person is unlikely to help (and may even hinder), will probably be waved away or see them criticised by locals, and is just stock political theatre. I've even defended Boris on that basis.
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
As long as Labour is largest party he can do that, if not the SNP are more influential in a hung parliament
There remain scenarios where (a) the Tories win a majority or (b) the Tories are the largest party. In which case what Starmer thinks of the SNP doesn't matter.
In (b) the Tories problem is that no other party will work with them. So a minority lets cling on job may be short lived.
More realistic is (c) a Labour largest party or (d) Labour majority.
Whilst I still think "screw the SNP, they will fall into line" is the right approach for Starmer in the circumstance, it isn't a given any more. Scottish politics post Sindy is very different to pre-Sindy. ConLabLib are much of a muchness if you want independence. "You can't vote with the Tories" not the threat it once was.
Boris takes more foreign holidays than @Leon. The Telegraph reports the Prime Minister has been filmed shopping in Greece, as per this video. That's his second in as many weeks, isn't it? Third if you count Chequers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731obOKdTr4
So what, even PMs are allowed a holiday. The Blairs used to spend most of August in Tuscany and the Camerons in Cornwall. Even May went walking in Switzerland and Brown forced himself to have a brief break in Southwold looking bored or with policy wonks in Cape Cod
I didn't know about Brown's holiday in Southwold and that he hated it and we have a house there so I thought we would be aware, so I looked it up and you are right there are all sorts of news stories about him staying there and him hating it. Good spot.
That is until you look further and find that he holidayed in Shadingfield, 10 miles away and that I have never heard of, and that he probably didn't even visit Southwold (apparently he may have had a meeting with the mayor). Lowestoft is just as close and much bigger place.
Honestly the media is hopeless. It has a thing about Southwold so worms it in to any story.
I mentioned the other day the fixation the media has with Asian Hornets. Not the real issue of why they are a species that has to be reported because they are deadly to bees, but makes them out to be deadly to humans which they aren't.
Here is another classic from this weekend about plums being deadly to dogs with the classic line of the stones being 'full of traces of cyanide'. Some oxymoron and anyone with any knowledge of this family of fruits knows the stones of these fruits contain traces of cyanide. Traces being the optimal word. Have no idea what full of traces means.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Good point. But not all countries are going to be able to afford to do this, or want to do this.
The sweet spot is to have prices increase enough to encourage energy efficiency without cutting back on essential usage.
If there isn't a steep reduction on chavvy lighted decorations this Christmas then there will be plenty of people with money to spend.
I would not at all be offended by a special VAT rate of 200% on outdoor Xmas lights.
Truss will have to u-turn to some degree but I doubt she’ll mirror the Starmer policy in full . Whatever she comes up with now won’t be as generous as that policy so Labour should be able to make the case that the Tories have let the public down and Truss is on the side of the energy companies.
Trying to argue about the risk to future investment by them if there’s a windfall tax extension will fall on deaf ears , many people are just too worried about how they’re going to get through the winter .
Starmer interviewed on R4 this morning on the energy cap, inter alia. He was predictably dull but absolutely fine and dealt with the 'universality' of Labour's proposals well, as he did with support for wage rises (basically, his proposal would help to reduce pressure on wages, a fair bit of which comes from energy bill hikes). I suspect Labour's proposals will see a bit of a positive shift in their ratings.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
I thought sally nugent appeared almost embarrassed she'd asked him about taking a holiday after he gave that answer.
Jeez. What’s the big deal about Starmer taking a holiday? He’s got no executive power and has nothing to even oppose right now because the actual Executive are MIA. What the media should be criticising every day is that the Tories have let this preening peacock show go on the whole summer.
They’ve completely blown the limited window to take emergency actions to mitigate this winter, so that all we’ll be left with is moving pots of money from one place to another rather than trying to find ways of a) increasingly resilience of supply, b) reducing demand, c) mitigating the worst impacts of power supply outages (e.g. battery backup for the boilers of vulnerable households, backup generators in every school etc…).
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
As long as Labour is largest party he can do that, if not the SNP are more influential in a hung parliament
There remain scenarios where (a) the Tories win a majority or (b) the Tories are the largest party. In which case what Starmer thinks of the SNP doesn't matter.
In (b) the Tories problem is that no other party will work with them. So a minority lets cling on job may be short lived.
More realistic is (c) a Labour largest party or (d) Labour majority.
Whilst I still think "screw the SNP, they will fall into line" is the right approach for Starmer in the circumstance, it isn't a given any more. Scottish politics post Sindy is very different to pre-Sindy. ConLabLib are much of a muchness if you want independence. "You can't vote with the Tories" not the threat it once was.
The Tories now seem to be attacking their own policy to help people with their energy bills.
Not that strange, they are about to choose as leader someone who thinks every government she has served in, including the one led by Boris which she thinks it was a mistake to remove, has been fundamentally failing in its economic policies to the point we need to try radical new ideas.
(1) proceed with Truss's idea of zero rating energy and suspending the green levies. It is crazy to make the curent pricing worse.
(2) Ensure that those on UC get a sufficient rise in benefits to cover the whole additional cost. Those who are not have to survive on the help Sunak has already given.
(3) Invest seriously in insulation to cut demand.
(4) Further time limited tax breaks to accelerate alternative supplies, especially wind, tidal and solar.
(5) Reverse the idiotic change in the cap to 3 months but have a borrowing facility available if energy suppliers are trapped supplying fuel below cost to maintain their economic viability.
Result = Mass non payment, and energy suppliers nationalised to save them from inevitable bankruptcy.
Considering that Unleaded has is up by 50% on where it was relatively recently, the whinging twats travelling on subsidised trains absolutely should be grateful that they're not paying their own way.
Truss will have to u-turn to some degree but I doubt she’ll mirror the Starmer policy in full . Whatever she comes up with now won’t be as generous as that policy so Labour should be able to make the case that the Tories have let the public down and Truss is on the side of the energy companies.
Trying to argue about the risk to future investment by them if there’s a windfall tax extension will fall on deaf ears , many people are just too worried about how they’re going to get through the winter .
I would have said the biggest risk to future investment is money going on meeting the energy cap shortfall rather than going on improving our power generation capacity so we're not pretty much exclusively reliant on gas.
If we really wanted to sort matters out, put that £50 billion the companies are talking about borrowing from the banks into new renewable capacity that we control ourselves so we are weaned from dependency on unstable countries with despotic regimes like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and potentially the USA.
But since it's been obvious for 30 years that a major crunch in energy supply would happen sooner or later and power companies, banks and governments of all hues have done precisely bugger all about it,* I suppose it would be optimistic to assume they would do something now merely because it's finally got to the stage where we can't ignore it any longer.
*I suppose building all those windfarms was possibly one step on the route, but given they are (a) unreliable and (b) it was accompanied by the simultaneous expansion of gas coupled with the closure of much of our storage, I'm not going to allow it.
The Tories now seem to be attacking their own policy to help people with their energy bills.
Not that strange, they are about to choose as leader someone who thinks every government she has served in, including the one led by Boris which she thinks it was a mistake to remove, has been fundamentally failing in its economic policies to the point we need to try radical new ideas.
There is no logic to pegging rail fares to inflation when inflation is driven by high commodity prices. 'Oh your energy bill and food just got more expensive, that means your commute automatically has to get more expensive as well. no you don't get more money to pay for it.' https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1559075092046483458
Indeed, the price of commuting is for 80% of the country up 50% and has been automatically all year and the feather prats whining about fares are worried about a less than 11% fare rise coming into place at some point next year?
Oh go cry me river. Long past time to abolish all rail subsidies and allow rail commuters to pay their own way. See how much rail fares adjust by then when the energy to power the rails has more than doubled in price.
Realise the issue is at supply level, UK energy demand is going to grow - and it should; energy use and standard of living go hand in hand. Couple this with the fact we need the UK's population to grow anyway to function better as an economy and well... Commission the MET office to look into the availability of all natural power sources - wind, solar, tidal that would produce the remainder of almost always 45 GW available power that needs filling with the current CCGT burn. Add in nuclear, gas and heck even a bit of coal As needs must. Solve for the lowest cost to the UK consumer, both business and domestic going forward. It's basically a multivariate linear programming optimisation problem that would churn out an answer. Oh batteries would be included as well - anyway solve this equation, then set out a plan to implement the solution paid for with long term bonds. As for the current bills whilst this is being built ? First up no help for higher rate taxpayers - taper out the support from 40k -> 50k. More help for 20k and UC. Gov't loans available for energy intensive small bus so they don't go under. A few more checks than Rishi's scheme. There'd likely be gaps with the wind use required - just fill this with gas - CCGT does have a place but there's no way on God's green earth it should be 60% of generation.
OTOH an energy cap is a simpler sell.
Switching supplies, as you mention is largely happening, but it is a medium to long term switch. The short term problem is supply, demand and cost and there is no cheap way to deal with it.
We face two problems and they need to be dealt with separately.
Problem 1 is a short term one of managing without Russian supplied fossil fuels, which means bring in every immediately available energy source, regardless of cost. At the same time we need to reduce demand. Also people need to be helped through the transition of extreme high prices.
Problem 2 is a medium to long term one of bringing in renewables as cheap and reliable alternatives to fossil fuels
Additional gas supplies and coal for problem 1; wind, solar and energy storage for problem 2.
Incidentally nuclear doesn't address either of these two problems. It's neither immediately available, nor cheap and reliable,
There is no logic to pegging rail fares to inflation when inflation is driven by high commodity prices. 'Oh your energy bill and food just got more expensive, that means your commute automatically has to get more expensive as well. no you don't get more money to pay for it.' https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1559075092046483458
Indeed, the price of commuting is for 80% of the country up 50% and has been automatically all year and the feather prats whining about fares are worried about a less than 11% fare rise coming into place at some point next year?
Oh go cry me river. Long past time to abolish all rail subsidies and allow rail commuters to pay their own way. See how much rail fares adjust by then when the energy to power the rails has more than doubled in price.
Without subsidies we'd have no railways left.
Except for InterCity which was profitable when publicly owned by BR, all the railways make a loss.
Why don't we privatise roads too? We spend billions subsidising those, make motorists pay their own way and let's have tolls for all roads
NEW Mark Francois: Why Liz Truss wins the "Thatcher test" on defence and foreign policy
Yet again, are the Tories admitting they have given up on their new voters or are they just thick?
The Red Wall DOES NOT want Thatcher
Its genuinely saddening when actual elected MPs clearly operate purely on nostalgia blinkers. They remember being a young man or woman or intermediate when Thatcher or Foot or whoever was sparking their interest in politics and they think the answer to everything is to redo that.
(4) Further time limited tax breaks to accelerate alternative supplies, especially wind, tidal and solar.
The Inflation Reduction Act deal includes permitting reform so your wind farm doesn't get held up for 10 years while you count migrating halibut or whatever. Doesn't Britain need something like that? It doesn't matter how big you make the tax breaks if you can't get permission to build anything.
If energy prices are rising because there isn't enough gas to go round (due to Russia witholding supply) - if every country in Europe caps their energy prices at current levels, aren't we left with the problem that
- Demand for energy won't drop at all as people will continue to consume the same amount of energy at the fixed lower price - Energy prices (for those governments paying the subsidy) will be a lot higher than they otherwise would be due to this extra demand created by artificially low prices for consumers - If, as was stated last night, supply has dropped 10% (due to Russia withholding supplies), surely that 10% drop in supply has to be felt somewhere (e.g. by the countries who can't afford to bid insane amounts for gas)
tl;dr if all the rich countries of Europe subsidise energy prices for their consumers, what happens when demand doesn't drop (but supply already has)?
Good point. But not all countries are going to be able to afford to do this, or want to do this.
The sweet spot is to have prices increase enough to encourage energy efficiency without cutting back on essential usage.
If there isn't a steep reduction on chavvy lighted decorations this Christmas then there will be plenty of people with money to spend.
The Tories now seem to be attacking their own policy to help people with their energy bills.
Not that strange, they are about to choose as leader someone who thinks every government she has served in, including the one led by Boris which she thinks it was a mistake to remove, has been fundamentally failing in its economic policies to the point we need to try radical new ideas.
So rather like Mrs Thatcher, then.
It's one thing to do that in opposition. The electoral defeat gives you an excuse, and the next election gives the public a say.
Rather more questionable to do it while in government.
NEW Mark Francois: Why Liz Truss wins the "Thatcher test" on defence and foreign policy
Yet again, are the Tories admitting they have given up on their new voters or are they just thick?
The Red Wall DOES NOT want Thatcher
Its genuinely saddening when actual elected MPs clearly operate purely on nostalgia blinkers. They remember being a young man or woman or intermediate when Thatcher or Foot or whoever was sparking their interest in politics and they think the answer to everything is to redo that.
NEW Mark Francois: Why Liz Truss wins the "Thatcher test" on defence and foreign policy
Yet again, are the Tories admitting they have given up on their new voters or are they just thick?
The Red Wall DOES NOT want Thatcher
It’s bizarre why they keep pushing this Thatcher line . The Tory membership might like that but the Red Wall generally loathed her .
The Red Wall of Thatcher's day doesn't exist anymore, that's kind of the whole point of the Red Wall concept. The seats had changed demographics and it was a delayed response to switch support to the Tories.
Seats with today's Red Wall demographics in Thatcher's day absolutely did vote for Thatcher.
Realise the issue is at supply level, UK energy demand is going to grow - and it should; energy use and standard of living go hand in hand. Couple this with the fact we need the UK's population to grow anyway to function better as an economy and well... Commission the MET office to look into the availability of all natural power sources - wind, solar, tidal that would produce the remainder of almost always 45 GW available power that needs filling with the current CCGT burn. Add in nuclear, gas and heck even a bit of coal As needs must. Solve for the lowest cost to the UK consumer, both business and domestic going forward. It's basically a multivariate linear programming optimisation problem that would churn out an answer. Oh batteries would be included as well - anyway solve this equation, then set out a plan to implement the solution paid for with long term bonds. As for the current bills whilst this is being built ? First up no help for higher rate taxpayers - taper out the support from 40k -> 50k. More help for 20k and UC. Gov't loans available for energy intensive small bus so they don't go under. A few more checks than Rishi's scheme. There'd likely be gaps with the wind use required - just fill this with gas - CCGT does have a place but there's no way on God's green earth it should be 60% of generation.
OTOH an energy cap is a simpler sell.
Switching supplies, as you mention is largely happening, but it is a medium to long term switch. The short term problem is supply, demand and cost and there is no cheap way to deal with it.
We face two problems and they need to be dealt with separately.
Problem 1 is a short term one of managing without Russian supplied fossil fuels, which means bring in every immediately available energy source, regardless of cost. At the same time we need to reduce demand. Also people need to be helped through the transition of extreme high prices.
Problem 2 is a medium to long term one of bringing in renewables as cheap and reliable alternatives to fossil fuels
Additional gas supplies and coal for problem 1; wind, solar and energy storage for problem 2.
Incidentally nuclear doesn't address either of these two problems. It's neither immediately available, nor cheap and reliable,
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Spending taxpayer money to shield average (not poor) households from the impacts of inflation is the short route to economic ruin.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Spending taxpayer money to shield average (not poor) households from the impacts of inflation is the short route to economic ruin.
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
It would be very fishy if you had.
Not one of your best, sorry. To quote you teachers, 'must try harder'.
If you meant 'your teachers,' you spelled it wrong.
If you meant 'you teachers,' I would remind you I am taking a break from teaching having finally got fed up of working for third rate scum like OFSTED and the DfE.
Either way, 0/10, see me at the end of the lesson.
Bugger, detention. You're going to make me write out "The DfE and Ofsted are all third-rate scum" 1,000 times, aren't you?
There is no logic to pegging rail fares to inflation when inflation is driven by high commodity prices. 'Oh your energy bill and food just got more expensive, that means your commute automatically has to get more expensive as well. no you don't get more money to pay for it.' https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1559075092046483458
Indeed, the price of commuting is for 80% of the country up 50% and has been automatically all year and the feather prats whining about fares are worried about a less than 11% fare rise coming into place at some point next year?
Oh go cry me river. Long past time to abolish all rail subsidies and allow rail commuters to pay their own way. See how much rail fares adjust by then when the energy to power the rails has more than doubled in price.
Glad to see you support a move of office type jobs to work from home. That way there is no need for big offices mainly in the south east, people can live where they want, so no need to concrete over southern england etc etc
NEW Mark Francois: Why Liz Truss wins the "Thatcher test" on defence and foreign policy
Yet again, are the Tories admitting they have given up on their new voters or are they just thick?
The Red Wall DOES NOT want Thatcher
It’s bizarre why they keep pushing this Thatcher line . The Tory membership might like that but the Red Wall generally loathed her .
In defence of it people often remember Thatcher as being strong, even if they were on the side that deplored her strength. An association with strength could be useful.
But at some point even the members might notice practically every female Tory gets assessed under the Thatcher test at some point and start wondering if it's a meaningless label at this point.
Am reading more and more things about businesses being presented with unviable energy bills. There are "we'll have to close" news stories all across the country. One of our village takeaways has just unveiled reduced opening hours to reduce their bills on quieter days.
Anyone who runs a small business knows how tight cashflow can get. Whilst there is an obvious option to borrow to invest in energy-saving kit (such as remove florescent strip lighting and replace with LEDs), business banking remains in the shit post-covid, and loans are not as easy to access as they were.
I worry for the hospitality sector. The run up to Xmas is where they make a lot of money and the first couple of months of the year are much slower.
Will there be the Xmas parties and people going out with fuel bills going up in October and these businesses will also be hammered. Especially places like chippies and curry houses.
It's a long time since I've been to a Xmas party in a chippie!
It would be very fishy if you had.
Not one of your best, sorry. To quote you teachers, 'must try harder'.
If you meant 'your teachers,' you spelled it wrong.
If you meant 'you teachers,' I would remind you I am taking a break from teaching having finally got fed up of working for third rate scum like OFSTED and the DfE.
Either way, 0/10, see me at the end of the lesson.
Bugger, detention. You're going to make me write out "The DfE and Ofsted are all third-rate scum" 1,000 times, aren't you?
The Tories now seem to be attacking their own policy to help people with their energy bills.
Not that strange, they are about to choose as leader someone who thinks every government she has served in, including the one led by Boris which she thinks it was a mistake to remove, has been fundamentally failing in its economic policies to the point we need to try radical new ideas.
So rather like Mrs Thatcher, then.
It's one thing to do that in opposition. The electoral defeat gives you an excuse, and the next election gives the public a say.
Rather more questionable to do it while in government.
Especially when it is about a month before the inevitable u-turn and you go further down the existing policy that you are currently trashing. Bonkers.
More to the point, as I said on Radio 4 just now, Labour has gone much further than Conservative leadership contenders in even making an attempt at talking about how to pay for its package. Some huge unfunded tax cuts and other promises coming from Truss (especially) and Sunak.
There is no logic to pegging rail fares to inflation when inflation is driven by high commodity prices. 'Oh your energy bill and food just got more expensive, that means your commute automatically has to get more expensive as well. no you don't get more money to pay for it.' https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1559075092046483458
Indeed, the price of commuting is for 80% of the country up 50% and has been automatically all year and the feather prats whining about fares are worried about a less than 11% fare rise coming into place at some point next year?
Oh go cry me river. Long past time to abolish all rail subsidies and allow rail commuters to pay their own way. See how much rail fares adjust by then when the energy to power the rails has more than doubled in price.
Without subsidies we'd have no railways left.
Except for InterCity which was profitable when publicly owned by BR, all the railways make a loss.
Why don't we privatise roads too? We spend billions subsidising those, make motorists pay their own way and let's have tolls for all roads
Abolish fuel duty and road tax and I'd be quite content to pay for privatised roads, it'd be much cheaper.
You have remarkably little faith in rails as a concept to think they can't be economically run without subsidies. If they're so dreadfully inefficient that they can't, then maybe we shouldn't have any left? But in other high population density island nations around the world the rails are able to be run without subsidies and because of the lack of subsidies any fares generated are prioritised to improving the rail network rather than pandering to political whims.
Comments
Messages followed on the internet: can you geolocate this place? Popasna, it turns out.
The offices of Wagner have now been destroyed in a HIMARS barrage.
Suggestions that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the man who controlled Wagner and a right-hand oligarch of Putin, was visiting at the time.
If so, this might represent the greatest victory ever for keyboard warriors....
So now, everyone is doing an assessment that we used to understand was too hard and therefore a complete waste of time for around 40% of the cohort...
A government might want to do A, B and C.
An opposition might want to do D, E and F.
But a crisis occurs which the government doesn't know hot to handle but the opposition says do X.
The government does X and then gets on with doing A, B and C.
So the government is still in power for the things it wants to do.
It's the near term that's tough. The LibDem/Labour plan would cost around £30bn over six months. That's Covid furlough levels of expenditure.
That isn't financially sustainable for very long. Will the gas crisis be over by the spring ?
Liz Truss words: wooden, boring, unsure, trustworthy
Sunak: rich, snake, out of touch, competent, trustworthy
So far as I am aware she has not announced any plans re IT at all. She has indicated that those on benefits will need more help but been pretty vague about it.
He also dealt well with a 'missing in action' hint - "I'm LoTo, but I'm also a dad, and my (school-age) kids haven't had a proper holiday for a long time".
Good to know.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Starmer but taking a holiday in holiday time is not one of them. That's as unreasonable as a certain poster on here who seemed to think I should give up my holiday time unpaid to do extra lessons.
To me these are key as to why its clearly the best policy, but perhaps not easy to get across in a short interview.
I remain sceptical that Liz Truss and her tax-cutting, Thatcherite 2.0 economics are what these voters want. I actually think Labour now is probably as "in touch" as its been with them for some years, primarily because they are not concerned about Labour nationalising everything and saying goodbye to foreign policy.
Switching supplies, as you mention is largely happening, but it is a medium to long term switch. The short term problem is supply, demand and cost and there is no cheap way to deal with it.
Keir Starmer announces policy to help with CoL
NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!
Had the likes of you not insisted on ousting him he could also have provided more subsidies to those needing support with energy bills than Truss will do when she takes over
Meanwhile Snake / Backstabber are much harder tags to shift for Sunak and as for Rich…
Speaking to an audience on the Edinburgh Fringe, Sir Keir also categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP to get into Government, saying breaking up the UK was a “fundamental” difference between the parties.
He said that if Labour had to govern as a minority after the next election, he would dare the SNP to vote down the administration and risk letting the Tories back into power.
Labour has learned from the Ed M experience then, this is a clear line early on
If Smirnoff wrote policies...
So in this scenario, if energy consumption in Europe doesn't drop significantly (but supply already has), someone has to lose out.
A couple of possible answers... poorer non European countries can't keep the lights on this winter? Arab spring style protests in affected countries? Or will European countries ration energy internally to reduce demand, e.g. mandating temporary halts to heavy industry, reduced train timetables, etc?
What have we done to offend thee, oh Gods?
But it's a not unreasonable question.
We're basically talking about an attempt to buck a global market.
Last time we tried that, George Soros made his fortune from the sidelines.
“Can we find a wedge issue, can we find something like Rwanda or trans rights, something that divides communities instead of bringing them together.
“Because He doesn't think or care whether it works. He actually wants to be stopped so he can blame somebody else.
“And that’s the tragedy of, among other things, the Rwanda scheme that they've set up.”
Goodness, I think they've cracked it
https://twitter.com/scottishbants2/status/1558893222163894274?s=21&t=4hBgnXEfTK9d2gI6wZLBEw
I'm reminded of when David Cameron was criticised for going on a scheduled visit to (I think) Rwanda during the 2007 floods. Everyone said he was 'missing in action.' Well, actually, he'd already visited the flood hit areas and urged the government to do more, with some effect as it forced Brown into doing the same. But with Brown in full honeymoon mode and frankly very little he could do, the criticism always struck me as rather unfair.
Just look at the lengths people have to go when they are wrong, like that chap who was given a warning for his tweets.
(1) proceed with Truss's idea of zero rating energy and suspending the green levies. It is crazy to make the curent pricing worse.
(2) Ensure that those on UC get a sufficient rise in benefits to cover the whole additional cost. Those who are not have to survive on the help Sunak has already given.
(3) Invest seriously in insulation to cut demand.
(4) Further time limited tax breaks to accelerate alternative supplies, especially wind, tidal and solar.
(5) Reverse the idiotic change in the cap to 3 months but have a borrowing facility available if energy suppliers are trapped supplying fuel below cost to maintain their economic viability.
If you meant 'you teachers,' I would remind you I am taking a break from teaching having finally got fed up of working for third rate scum like OFSTED and the DfE.
Either way, 0/10, see me at the end of the lesson.
If there isn't a steep reduction on chavvy lighted decorations this Christmas then there will be plenty of people with money to spend.
Because when someone else is acting like a professional dick, calmly naming the underlying dickishness can be very powerful.
I would say however that when Parliament rises for the conference season it would be not merely sensible but positively helpful to his successor if he went on holiday then instead, and kept his mouth shut.
As his current family are not yet school age that wouldn't be a problem either.
He is a liar and he is lying to you and you should have the sense to know better.
You need to strike the balance, but that balance likely requires a very big subsidy.
As David Cameron said in the 2010 debates not everything labour did was bad, and theyd keep the good stuff.
In (b) the Tories problem is that no other party will work with them. So a minority lets cling on job may be short lived.
More realistic is (c) a Labour largest party or (d) Labour majority.
Whilst I still think "screw the SNP, they will fall into line" is the right approach for Starmer in the circumstance, it isn't a given any more. Scottish politics post Sindy is very different to pre-Sindy. ConLabLib are much of a muchness if you want independence. "You can't vote with the Tories" not the threat it once was.
NEW Mark Francois: Why Liz Truss wins the "Thatcher test" on defence and foreign policy
Yet again, are the Tories admitting they have given up on their new voters or are they just thick?
The Red Wall DOES NOT want Thatcher
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/616804e3b1bb682181eb927a/t/62221c7de71bf131409ddd09/1646402762378/HEPI_Press_Release_February_2022.pdf
According to this paper for example in Denmark the energy component at the start of the year was just 38% of the cost (the rest distribution and taxes) whereas in Spain energy was 67% of the cost.
It seems reasonable to assume that different policy outcomes might result in those countries, Denmark might favour lowering taxes and Spain capping energy.
That is until you look further and find that he holidayed in Shadingfield, 10 miles away and that I have never heard of, and that he probably didn't even visit Southwold (apparently he may have had a meeting with the mayor). Lowestoft is just as close and much bigger place.
Honestly the media is hopeless. It has a thing about Southwold so worms it in to any story.
I mentioned the other day the fixation the media has with Asian Hornets. Not the real issue of why they are a species that has to be reported because they are deadly to bees, but makes them out to be deadly to humans which they aren't.
Here is another classic from this weekend about plums being deadly to dogs with the classic line of the stones being 'full of traces of cyanide'. Some oxymoron and anyone with any knowledge of this family of fruits knows the stones of these fruits contain traces of cyanide. Traces being the optimal word. Have no idea what full of traces means.
Trying to argue about the risk to future investment by them if there’s a windfall tax extension will fall on deaf ears , many people are just too worried about how they’re going to get through the winter .
They’ve completely blown the limited window to take emergency actions to mitigate this winter, so that all we’ll be left with is moving pots of money from one place to another rather than trying to find ways of a) increasingly resilience of supply, b) reducing demand, c) mitigating the worst impacts of power supply outages (e.g. battery backup for the boilers of vulnerable households, backup generators in every school etc…).
If we really wanted to sort matters out, put that £50 billion the companies are talking about borrowing from the banks into new renewable capacity that we control ourselves so we are weaned from dependency on unstable countries with despotic regimes like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and potentially the USA.
But since it's been obvious for 30 years that a major crunch in energy supply would happen sooner or later and power companies, banks and governments of all hues have done precisely bugger all about it,* I suppose it would be optimistic to assume they would do something now merely because it's finally got to the stage where we can't ignore it any longer.
*I suppose building all those windfarms was possibly one step on the route, but given they are (a) unreliable and (b) it was accompanied by the simultaneous expansion of gas coupled with the closure of much of our storage, I'm not going to allow it.
Oh go cry me river. Long past time to abolish all rail subsidies and allow rail commuters to pay their own way. See how much rail fares adjust by then when the energy to power the rails has more than doubled in price.
Problem 1 is a short term one of managing without Russian supplied fossil fuels, which means bring in every immediately available energy source, regardless of cost. At the same time we need to reduce demand. Also people need to be helped through the transition of extreme high prices.
Problem 2 is a medium to long term one of bringing in renewables as cheap and reliable alternatives to fossil fuels
Additional gas supplies and coal for problem 1; wind, solar and energy storage for problem 2.
Incidentally nuclear doesn't address either of these two problems. It's neither immediately available, nor cheap and reliable,
Except for InterCity which was profitable when publicly owned by BR, all the railways make a loss.
Why don't we privatise roads too? We spend billions subsidising those, make motorists pay their own way and let's have tolls for all roads
https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1554203968766631938
Rather more questionable to do it while in government.
Seats with today's Red Wall demographics in Thatcher's day absolutely did vote for Thatcher.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
Spending taxpayer money to shield average (not poor) households from the impacts of inflation is the short route to economic ruin.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1559081599370756100
@NickFerrariLBC skewers Tory MP Brandon Lewis over the cost of living crisis.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1559072038018600963
Possibly Starmer's greatest political stroke so far
You're going to make me write out "The DfE and Ofsted are all third-rate scum" 1,000 times, aren't you?
How on earth did Brandon Lewis not wither him with that retort?
But at some point even the members might notice practically every female Tory gets assessed under the Thatcher test at some point and start wondering if it's a meaningless label at this point.
Not a line under 5,000.
https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1559086362325929986
The Tories are economically incompetent.
You have remarkably little faith in rails as a concept to think they can't be economically run without subsidies. If they're so dreadfully inefficient that they can't, then maybe we shouldn't have any left? But in other high population density island nations around the world the rails are able to be run without subsidies and because of the lack of subsidies any fares generated are prioritised to improving the rail network rather than pandering to political whims.
No chance of any kind of energy use reduction this winter if everyone just gets their bill paid by the state surely?
I remember when Ed M's energy cap was communism until Theresa May adopted it.