Howdy, Stranger!

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

Blow for Truss in first voting poll as PM – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageBlow for Truss in first voting poll as PM – politicalbetting.com

The Times is reporting a new YouGov poll where all the fieldwork took place after she became PM. The numbers are not encouraging for the new leader and according to the report LAB is 15% ahead.

Read the full story here

«13456712

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,291
    Test
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    edited September 8
    I’m not sure it really is a blow for Truss: she may be getting roughly the same polling figures as the Oaf. Out of the last 10 polls, the highest Labour lead is 17% and the lowest is 4%. Admittedly 15% is at the higher end of the spectrum.

    The disappointing thing for the Tories is that getting rid of the Oaf was meant to boost the brand, but they might have to accept that he has in fact permanently crippled the brand. He was Gerald Ratner on steroids, and a new captain isn’t going to save the sinking ship. But the band plays on…
  • The poll gives us a baseline from which to measure reaction to this afternoon's unveiling of the Truss plan to ameliorate high fuel bills.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    edited September 8
    Not surprised. Boris had a personal vote despite being dodgy. Truss does not inherit that personal vote, but inherits all his problems. She is rebuilding from a lower base than Boris, but without his charisma. It could be pretty thankless and a long old slog even if her policies resonate.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    Given previous polling, which Mike posted an article about, that showed the more people see Truss the less they like her then the omens are not good.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    Interesting thread - “ this kind of loss is almost unthinkable for a modern military… “
    https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/status/1567643689597411331

    Reckons the Ukraine offensive may need to pause soon, but they have clearly demonstrated it’s possible to break the stalemate.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,850
    Taz said:

    Given previous polling, which Mike posted an article about, that showed the more people see Truss the less they like her then the omens are not good.

    The more I read comments like yours the more likeky I am.to look favourably upon Truss. She hasn't been in the job a day and you are dismissive.based on knee jerk reaction to an insta poll
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766
    Truss said she had 3 priorities. Energy Costs, Infrastructure and the NHS. She has also promised to increase defence expenditure. Her problem is that sorting these out will cost lots of money. By simultaneously cutting taxes the Treasury is going to explode. If she manages to get the Treasury to support increased expenditure then the Bank of England will have to massively raise interest rates.

    In the next two years, the latest date for the general election is end 2024, the Truss led Conservative Party will either collapse the economy or fail to deliver, deliver, deliver.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting thread - “ this kind of loss is almost unthinkable for a modern military… “
    https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/status/1567643689597411331

    Reckons the Ukraine offensive may need to pause soon, but they have clearly demonstrated it’s possible to break the stalemate.

    The defenders have had a very good couple of days, especially around Kharkiv and Kherson - with the loss to the enemy of dozens of tanks, artillery pieces and armoured vehicles, a handful of aircraft, and hundreds of soldiers.

    A great effort from the Ukranian defenders.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876

    Taz said:

    Given previous polling, which Mike posted an article about, that showed the more people see Truss the less they like her then the omens are not good.

    The more I read comments like yours the more likeky I am.to look favourably upon Truss. She hasn't been in the job a day and you are dismissive.based on knee jerk reaction to an insta poll
    She has been a minister for god knows how many years. She has been observed in select committees and we have a few comments about her from her past work. In pmqs yesterday she blamed Labour for no progress on nuclear when there has been no similar progress since 2010. The old old story.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235

    Taz said:

    Given previous polling, which Mike posted an article about, that showed the more people see Truss the less they like her then the omens are not good.

    The more I read comments like yours the more likeky I am.to look favourably upon Truss. She hasn't been in the job a day and you are dismissive.based on knee jerk reaction to an insta poll
    I’m not against her, I hope she succeeds although I don’t vote Tory.

    However the poll during the campaign that showed the more people see her the less they like her should be concerning to her team. How do,they mitigate that ?
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    The new culture Secretary is a license fee sceptic too. Hopefully she will continue Nadine Dorries work in this area and get rid of it and replace it with an alternate means of funding that is not general taxation based but either ads or subscription or a mix., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/07/michelle-donelan-new-culture-secretary-wants-scrap-bbc-licence/
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,402
    edited September 8
    Taz said:

    The new culture Secretary is a license fee sceptic too. Hopefully she will continue Nadine Dorries work in this area and get rid of it and replace it with an alternate means of funding that is not general taxation based but either ads or subscription or a mix., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/07/michelle-donelan-new-culture-secretary-wants-scrap-bbc-licence/

    Sod the BBC; Michelle Donelan is also keen on gambling reform, which is code for restrictions. Let's hope she confines herself to FOBTs and lets us continue betting on Liz Truss's replacement.
    https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/supporter-of-gambling-reform-michelle-donelan-appointed-as-new-culture-secretary/577564
  • Come on, Truss "blew" Starmer away? I don't think that's remotely objective.

    They both did well, she did better than expected and they had an actual debate of ideas which was refreshing.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451

    Taz said:

    The new culture Secretary is a license fee sceptic too. Hopefully she will continue Nadine Dorries work in this area and get rid of it and replace it with an alternate means of funding that is not general taxation based but either ads or subscription or a mix., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/07/michelle-donelan-new-culture-secretary-wants-scrap-bbc-licence/

    Sod the BBC; Michelle Donelan is also keen on gambling reform, which is code for restrictions. Let's hope she confines herself to FOBTs and lets us continue betting on Liz Truss's replacement.
    https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/supporter-of-gambling-reform-michelle-donelan-appointed-as-new-culture-secretary/577564
    I think FOBTs have been effectively neutered by the £2 maximum stake. I'm definitely in favour of a ban or much tougher restrictions on advertising.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235

    Taz said:

    The new culture Secretary is a license fee sceptic too. Hopefully she will continue Nadine Dorries work in this area and get rid of it and replace it with an alternate means of funding that is not general taxation based but either ads or subscription or a mix., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/07/michelle-donelan-new-culture-secretary-wants-scrap-bbc-licence/

    Sod the BBC; Michelle Donelan is also keen on gambling reform, which is code for restrictions. Let's hope she confines herself to FOBTs and lets us continue betting on Liz Truss's replacement.
    https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/supporter-of-gambling-reform-michelle-donelan-appointed-as-new-culture-secretary/577564
    The anti gambling lobby is very influential.

    They brook no compromise.

    They have pretty much done FOBTs now, they will move on to other things.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    edited September 8
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sweden votes in four days - the latest Novus poll has the centre-left bloc still narrowly ahead on 50.1% to the centre-right on 48.6% (Sweden Democrats 20.6%, Moderates 17.3%).

    Looks like another Social Democrat minority government then, though needing the support of the Centre Party who have switched from the centre right block. The biggest gainers though still likely to be the Sweden Democrats
    Oddly enough, for all the campaigning, very little change from last time. Sweden Democrats up 3, Moderates down two and a half, Greens up one and a half, everyone else within a point of their 2018 result.
    Sweden Democrats overtake the Moderates as the main opposition party of the right looks like the biggest change.

    Sweden then follows France and Italy and Poland with the main centre right party overtaken by a party of the populist Nationalist right
    … and the UK.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sweden votes in four days - the latest Novus poll has the centre-left bloc still narrowly ahead on 50.1% to the centre-right on 48.6% (Sweden Democrats 20.6%, Moderates 17.3%).

    Looks like another Social Democrat minority government then, though needing the support of the Centre Party who have switched from the centre right block. The biggest gainers though still likely to be the Sweden Democrats
    Oddly enough, for all the campaigning, very little change from last time. Sweden Democrats up 3, Moderates down two and a half, Greens up one and a half, everyone else within a point of their 2018 result.
    Sweden Democrats overtake the Moderates as the main opposition party of the right looks like the biggest change.

    Sweden then follows France and Italy and Poland with the main centre right party overtaken by a party of the populist Nationalist right
    … and the UK.
    Still hasn't happened in Wales yet, but yes, everywhere else.

    Mind you, I don't think even Farage would be appreciably worse than the likes of Drakeford, Gethin and James.
  • Come on, Truss "blew" Starmer away? I don't think that's remotely objective.

    They both did well, she did better than expected and they had an actual debate of ideas which was refreshing.

    Yeah. About 55-1 at lunch on the first day of a traditional Test Match.

    But that's preferable to one side playing cricket and the other Calvinball.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited September 8

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sweden votes in four days - the latest Novus poll has the centre-left bloc still narrowly ahead on 50.1% to the centre-right on 48.6% (Sweden Democrats 20.6%, Moderates 17.3%).

    Looks like another Social Democrat minority government then, though needing the support of the Centre Party who have switched from the centre right block. The biggest gainers though still likely to be the Sweden Democrats
    Oddly enough, for all the campaigning, very little change from last time. Sweden Democrats up 3, Moderates down two and a half, Greens up one and a half, everyone else within a point of their 2018 result.
    Sweden Democrats overtake the Moderates as the main opposition party of the right looks like the biggest change.

    Sweden then follows France and Italy and Poland with the main centre right party overtaken by a party of the populist Nationalist right
    … and the UK.
    No, Truss is a free market liberal. The Nationalist right tend to be economically statist even if they take a hard line on immigration and crime.

    The Tories are also still well ahead of RefUK
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Icarus said:

    Truss said she had 3 priorities. Energy Costs, Infrastructure and the NHS. She has also promised to increase defence expenditure. Her problem is that sorting these out will cost lots of money. By simultaneously cutting taxes the Treasury is going to explode. If she manages to get the Treasury to support increased expenditure then the Bank of England will have to massively raise interest rates.

    In the next two years, the latest date for the general election is end 2024, the Truss led Conservative Party will either collapse the economy or fail to deliver, deliver, deliver.

    The problem is that while energy costs are urgent, infrastructure having been so long neglected undoubtedly needs sorting as a top priority and the NHS is buckling under the current pressures, that's not all. If she doesn't do something about our education and justice systems they may well implode, and our whole system of administration and governments looks like a lash-up past its sell-by date.

    I should add, exactly what to do about them in their current state isn't easy to work out. Certainly anything to improve them would not be cheap.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    So if Yougov is correct Truss will be the first new PM certainly in decades to get a negative poll bounce. Johnson, May, Brown and Major by contrast all got a positive poll bounce and saw their parties move ahead in the polls after taking over as PM.

    However, her energy package is only being announced today so still time to get some poll movement in her favour
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    What often seems to be forgotten about the Thatcher tax cuts is that they were delivered on the back of growing revenues from North Sea oil and huge privatisation programmes. I’d argue that both windfalls were wasted in that way, but they were windfalls nevertheless. Today’s Tories have nothing like that to fall back on. The risk they are taking is huge. Markets will inevitably notice that. That will make borrowing more expensive and so increase the risk. It’s right wing Corbynism, pure and simple. Maybe even worse as a lot of Corbynista borrowing would have been focused on improving the public realm and general infrastructure.

    Not only that, it will, of course, ultimately put more pressure on tax revenues.
  • Come on, Truss "blew" Starmer away? I don't think that's remotely objective.

    They both did well, she did better than expected and they had an actual debate of ideas which was refreshing.

    It’s not objective. It’s one person’s view. Labour will be very happy that PMQs delivered a clear red line on how to fund the cap. That is probably the longer-term consequence of the exchanges.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited September 8
    Heathener said:

    Good morning everyone. I decided to spend 2 months away from this forum partly because I was travelling, and didn't feel bragging about that during a cost of living crisis was appropriate, and partly because I then moved house. I have moved a long way from Surrey and I am now off-grid, something I had wanted to do for ages.

    In those long two months I've seen breathless excitement from one or two about Truss but for the most part, depressed resignation and downright hostility. I was astonished in a town yesterday to hear middle class people sounding off about her in random conversations with strangers. I have never encountered that before in my life. The anger is palpable. Visceral.

    She will be a disaster and I fear for Mike's wager.

    The tories will be out of office for either 10 years or 20 years, the latter if they seriously think Badenoch is their salvation.

    I won't spend much time on here I doubt and will post only occasionally - certainly not the 3000 posts one well known contributor has made in my absence ;) Apart from not wanting arguments I don't see much point debating about this. Nothing the tories and Truss can do over the next 2 years will save them from electoral calamity at the next General Election. The dye is cast. It's merely a question of how big Labour will go.

    Message ends.

    Have a nice day

    xx

    Given no party has won a general election after 10 years in power in the last 100 years apart from Major's Tories in 1992, a Labour win at the next general election would hardly be surprising. Major won a 4th term, Truss would be seeking a 5th term which has never been done since universal suffrage.

    Generally after a long period of power you would then expect the Tories to face a long period of opposition as Labour did after 2010 or the Tories did after 1997. However if we go back to high inflation and strikes like the 1970s all bets are off, we changed government 3 times that decade
  • Am I missing something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    HYUFD said:

    So if Yougov is correct Truss will be the first new PM certainly in decades to get a negative poll bounce. Johnson, May, Brown and Major by contrast all got a positive poll bounce and saw their parties move ahead in the polls after taking over as PM.

    However, her energy package is only being announced today so still time to get some poll movement in her favour

    I have forecast a negative bounce for some time.

    It was a relief to see a serious question time performance. Johnsons bombastic buffoonery had made it unwatchable, and I shall trouser my tax cut quite happily. I think her policies are idiotic and likely to leave the country in much worse position, but have to look out for my own interest.
  • ydoethur said:

    Icarus said:

    Truss said she had 3 priorities. Energy Costs, Infrastructure and the NHS. She has also promised to increase defence expenditure. Her problem is that sorting these out will cost lots of money. By simultaneously cutting taxes the Treasury is going to explode. If she manages to get the Treasury to support increased expenditure then the Bank of England will have to massively raise interest rates.

    In the next two years, the latest date for the general election is end 2024, the Truss led Conservative Party will either collapse the economy or fail to deliver, deliver, deliver.

    The problem is that while energy costs are urgent, infrastructure having been so long neglected undoubtedly needs sorting as a top priority and the NHS is buckling under the current pressures, that's not all. If she doesn't do something about our education and justice systems they may well implode, and our whole system of administration and governments looks like a lash-up past its sell-by date.

    I should add, exactly what to do about them in their current state isn't easy to work out. Certainly anything to improve them would not be cheap.
    It's also optimistic to think that Events (dear boy) won't leap out from a shady corner and push the government off its agenda.

    If Truss's plan is to shrink government to a size where it will fit in her head (and the smallness of her new No 10 operation points that way) it's not going to work well. You can't do a binary "on the agenda / off the agenda" thing, even if it makes things easier to analyse.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Taz said:

    The new culture Secretary is a license fee sceptic too. Hopefully she will continue Nadine Dorries work in this area and get rid of it and replace it with an alternate means of funding that is not general taxation based but either ads or subscription or a mix., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/07/michelle-donelan-new-culture-secretary-wants-scrap-bbc-licence/

    Sod the BBC; Michelle Donelan is also keen on gambling reform, which is code for restrictions. Let's hope she confines herself to FOBTs and lets us continue betting on Liz Truss's replacement.
    https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/supporter-of-gambling-reform-michelle-donelan-appointed-as-new-culture-secretary/577564
    She has "previously worked in marketing for WWE," which doesn't suggest a puritanical attitude to the monetization of sport (indeed I had to check to see whether people bet on it. They do, apparently). I was all for neutering FOBT and am intensely relaxed about advertising and sponsorship restrictions.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 249
    Heathener said:

    Good morning everyone. I decided to spend 2 months away from this forum partly because I was travelling, and didn't feel bragging about the details during a cost of living crisis was appropriate, and partly because I then moved house. I have moved a long way from Surrey and I am now off-grid, something I had wanted to do for ages.

    In those long two months I've seen breathless excitement from one or two about Truss but for the most part, depressed resignation and downright hostility. I was astonished in a town yesterday to hear middle class people sounding off about her in random conversations with strangers. I have never encountered that before in my life. The anger is palpable. Visceral.

    She will be a disaster and I fear for Mike's wager.

    The tories will be out of office for either 10 years or 20 years, the latter if they seriously think Badenoch is their salvation.

    I won't spend much time on here I doubt and will post only occasionally - certainly not the 3000 posts one well known contributor has made in my absence ;) Apart from not wanting arguments I don't see much point debating about this. Nothing the tories and Truss can do over the next 2 years will save them from electoral calamity at the next General Election. The dye is cast. It's merely a question of how big Labour will go.

    Message ends.

    Have a nice day

    xx

    Welcome back, and congrtulations on the move.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,079
    edited September 8
    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Am I missing something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?

    Are we still getting that 400 quid with the revised lower cap ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Am I missing something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?

    Yes, a bit. And bear in mind we already had a crisis before the rise on October 1 was announced. Boris was being an arse about it in May

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10777741/Boris-told-pensioner-rides-bus-day-warm-says-gave-free-pass.html
  • What often seems to be forgotten about the Thatcher tax cuts is that they were delivered on the back of growing revenues from North Sea oil and huge privatisation programmes. I’d argue that both windfalls were wasted in that way, but they were windfalls nevertheless. Today’s Tories have nothing like that to fall back on. The risk they are taking is huge. Markets will inevitably notice that. That will make borrowing more expensive and so increase the risk. It’s right wing Corbynism, pure and simple. Maybe even worse as a lot of Corbynista borrowing would have been focused on improving the public realm and general infrastructure.

    How would Corbynista borrowing in order to buy shares in water companies etc "improve" the public realm and general infrastructure? Not a penny of that would improve anything, it would be a purely negative windfall.

    Having people keep more of their own income when they work improves the realm by itself and reduces the deadweight welfare loss on the economy that taxation causes so there's a huge difference between the two.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Heathener said:

    Good morning everyone. I decided to spend 2 months away from this forum partly because I was travelling, and didn't feel bragging about the details during a cost of living crisis was appropriate, and partly because I then moved house. I have moved a long way from Surrey and I am now off-grid, something I had wanted to do for ages.

    In those long two months I've seen breathless excitement from one or two about Truss but for the most part, depressed resignation and downright hostility. I was astonished in a town yesterday to hear middle class people sounding off about her in random conversations with strangers. I have never encountered that before in my life. The anger is palpable. Visceral.

    She will be a disaster and I fear for Mike's wager.

    The tories will be out of office for either 10 years or 20 years, the latter if they seriously think Badenoch is their salvation.

    I won't spend much time on here I doubt and will post only occasionally - certainly not the 3000 posts one well known contributor has made in my absence ;) Apart from not wanting arguments I don't see much point debating about this. Nothing the tories and Truss can do over the next 2 years will save them from electoral calamity at the next General Election. The dye is cast. It's merely a question of how big Labour will go.

    Message ends.

    Have a nice day

    xx

    Morning

    It's the die is cast (singular of dice)
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,022

    Am I missing something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?

    For this year - Q4 2022 to Q3 2023 - it will be £2,500 less the £400 Rishi handout less the removal of 5% VAT on £2,500 ie £125 = £1,975 ie roughly same as now.

    It is quite possible there will be no £400 handout for 2023/4 so then it would go up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited September 8
    Farage tells the oil and gas companies to reinvest profits to make the UK energy self sufficient

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1567471099083882496?s=20&t=ubNuk4jDmotHuKNwQzgx2g
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,934

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    Ukraine is claiming 650 liquidated Russian personnel yesterday, which would translate to around 2,000 total casualties.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    .
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Given previous polling, which Mike posted an article about, that showed the more people see Truss the less they like her then the omens are not good.

    The more I read comments like yours the more likeky I am.to look favourably upon Truss. She hasn't been in the job a day and you are dismissive.based on knee jerk reaction to an insta poll
    I’m not against her, I hope she succeeds although I don’t vote Tory.

    However the poll during the campaign that showed the more people see her the less they like her should be concerning to her team. How do,they mitigate that ?
    She has the benefit of a short run up to the next election, so I'd guess her prospects are subject to events more than anything in her control.
    What we've heard this morning (though without details) on the energy policy for this winter's crisis actually sounds as though it might be quite sensible.

    I don't expect to be voting for her, but she could well be an improvement on Boris.
    Certainly less irritating to listen to.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Am I missing something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?

    Yes, a bit. And bear in mind we already had a crisis before the rise on October 1 was announced. Boris was being an arse about it in May

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10777741/Boris-told-pensioner-rides-bus-day-warm-says-gave-free-pass.html
    That's the tragic thing. The hundred billion isn't really going to make things better, but to stop things getting even worse.

    Even if Truss gets a positive bounce from today's announcement (and a windfall tax increase/extension, even if it were symbolic, would be part of that), it will deflate as the winter grinds on.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Am I missing something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?

    For this year - Q4 2022 to Q3 2023 - it will be £2,500 less the £400 Rishi handout less the removal of 5% VAT on £2,500 ie £125 = £1,975 ie roughly same as now.

    It is quite possible there will be no £400 handout for 2023/4 so then it would go up.

    Am I missing
    something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?

    For this year - Q4 2022 to Q3 2023 - it will be £2,500 less the £400 Rishi handout less the removal of 5% VAT on £2,500 ie £125 = £1,975 ie roughly same as now.

    It is quite possible there will be no £400 handout for 2023/4 so then it would go up.
    Having a higher cap and a fixed rebate strikes me as a good way to introduce changes in consumer behaviour, as this effectively makes the unit rate higher with the fixed cost lower. So ceteris paribus it should reduce demand from a straight changing of the cap to 2100.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Finally some good news from The Week's daily email

    North Korea’s parliament said it will turn the country into a “beautiful and civilised socialist fairyland,” state media reported. The North Korean Supreme People’s Assembly adopted laws on landscaping and rural development that it said will promote “a radical turn in the rural community and its policy on landscaping to achieve a rapid development of the Korean-style socialist rural community and spruce up the country into a beautiful and civilised socialist fairyland”. External monitors have warned of hardships in the country, including severe food shortages.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,931

    What often seems to be forgotten about the Thatcher tax cuts is that they were delivered on the back of growing revenues from North Sea oil and huge privatisation programmes. I’d argue that both windfalls were wasted in that way, but they were windfalls nevertheless. Today’s Tories have nothing like that to fall back on. The risk they are taking is huge. Markets will inevitably notice that. That will make borrowing more expensive and so increase the risk. It’s right wing Corbynism, pure and simple. Maybe even worse as a lot of Corbynista borrowing would have been focused on improving the public realm and general infrastructure.

    The price cap side is not Corbynista or right wing, it is inevitable. There was no other way of doing it which would leave the economy still functioning. Of course it could have been set at a slightly different level, or delivered slightly differently, but if we had let average bills get to £5k per year the economy would collapse on a scale not seen in our lifetimes.

    My concern is that Truss knew this for the last 3 months, yet told the electorate she was campaigning to win over the direct opposite of what she ended up doing - massive state handouts funded by debt. How am I supposed to trust the Truss in 24?

    The taxation side, both no additional taxes on energy extractors and the general corporation tax cut are weird and poor choices.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Am I missing something? Putting aside how it’s all funded, if the cap is set at £2,500, as reported, doesn’t that mean bills going up from here - even with Sunak’s £400 thrown in?

    Yes, a bit. And bear in mind we already had a crisis before the rise on October 1 was announced. Boris was being an arse about it in May

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10777741/Boris-told-pensioner-rides-bus-day-warm-says-gave-free-pass.html
    That's the tragic thing. The hundred billion isn't really going to make things better, but to stop things getting even worse.

    Even if Truss gets a positive bounce from today's announcement (and a windfall tax increase/extension, even if it were symbolic, would be part of that), it will deflate as the winter grinds on.
    Its not this winter that is the be all and end all.

    Truss has been a leading Western advocate for supporting Ukraine and we should expect that to rightly continue, which is why the Russians absolutely hate her. If she does her bit to help to ensure NATO etc support for Ukraine continues and then Russia and its regime falls leading to a reversal of these price hikes etc then we could be in a very different position in a couple of years time.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    moonshine said:

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    Ukraine is claiming 650 liquidated Russian personnel yesterday, which would translate to around 2,000 total casualties.
    Plenty of fog of war about, but events in Kharkiv Oblast are becoming quite dramatic. The Russian position in Izium is looking quite exposed, so a retreat may well be forced.

    Even a military defeat this year won't mean sanctions can drop though. That would require Putins downfall and a much more compliant new Russian regime.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,931
    HYUFD said:

    Farage tells the oil and gas companies to reinvest profits to make the UK energy self sufficient

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1567471099083882496?s=20&t=ubNuk4jDmotHuKNwQzgx2g

    That should probably solve it all. Phew.
  • Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,123
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Given previous polling, which Mike posted an article about, that showed the more people see Truss the less they like her then the omens are not good.

    The more I read comments like yours the more likeky I am.to look favourably upon Truss. She hasn't been in the job a day and you are dismissive.based on knee jerk reaction to an insta poll
    I’m not against her, I hope she succeeds although I don’t vote Tory.

    However the poll during the campaign that showed the more people see her the less they like her should be concerning to her team. How do,they mitigate that ?
    She has the benefit of a short run up to the next election, so I'd guess her prospects are subject to events more than anything in her control.
    What we've heard this morning (though without details) on the energy policy for this winter's crisis actually sounds as though it might be quite sensible.

    I don't expect to be voting for her, but she could well be an improvement on Boris.
    Certainly less irritating to listen to.
    I at least like the fact that she’s prepared to set out her beliefs. It gives a character to politics we haven’t seen for some time. Boris was just a chancer.

    I don’t think we can really assess the state of the polls until after todays announcement, though I do agree if she gets a small or no bounce at all we may have to start to appreciate the antipathy for the Tories is baked in and it will be very hard for them to come back. But events happen, so I still don’t see a Labour victory as a near inevitability like some do here.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Sandpit said:

    Brent Crude down at $88 this morning, lowest it’s been since January. Some good news in amongst all the gloom.

    Sterling up a cent against the US$ too.

    Gas futures also down to mid August prices which makes me wonder if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. It is possible that the energy plan will not prove as expensive as feared, which would be a great relief.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250

    My concern is that Truss knew this for the last 3 months, yet told the electorate she was campaigning to win over the direct opposite of what she ended up doing - massive state handouts funded by debt. How am I supposed to trust the Truss in 24?

    You're not...

    On why telling Conservative members what they wanted to hear on taxes, Europe and Boris Johnson ensured that Liz Truss won but is now facing a host of problems.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/09/liz-truss-cost-of-winning-david-gauke
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250

    I at least like the fact that she’s prepared to set out her beliefs. It gives a character to politics we haven’t seen for some time. Boris was just a chancer.

    Which beliefs?

    Scrapping the monarchy. Oh, that was last week...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    Scott_xP said:

    I at least like the fact that she’s prepared to set out her beliefs. It gives a character to politics we haven’t seen for some time. Boris was just a chancer.

    Which beliefs?

    Scrapping the monarchy. Oh, that was last week...
    That's just fluff. She has been pretty consistent in her economic liberalism throughout life.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Brent Crude down at $88 this morning, lowest it’s been since January. Some good news in amongst all the gloom.

    Sterling up a cent against the US$ too.

    Gas futures also down to mid August prices which makes me wonder if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. It is possible that the energy plan will not prove as expensive as feared, which would be a great relief.
    if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. "

    Are you sure ????
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Yes, renewable energy is a better bet in both short and long term, as is nuclear which can work as back up fairly dynamically. Apart from anything else fossil fuels are too valuable as chemicals to simply burn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    edited September 8
    Scott_xP said:

    My concern is that Truss knew this for the last 3 months, yet told the electorate she was campaigning to win over the direct opposite of what she ended up doing - massive state handouts funded by debt. How am I supposed to trust the Truss in 24?

    You're not...

    On why telling Conservative members what they wanted to hear on taxes, Europe and Boris Johnson ensured that Liz Truss won but is now facing a host of problems.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/09/liz-truss-cost-of-winning-david-gauke
    TBF, whatever she told Tory members she would be facing a host of problems.

    30 years of politicians dithering and when making decisions too often making the wrong ones have now come home to roost with a vengeance, just as she becomes PM.

    Johnson leaves in disgrace, but he probably also left just in time.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    BoTH S1des R the SAme

    https://twitter.com/JosephPolitano/status/1567503162151501825?t=qMx9xVHNxPhlNj8v2lA6-Q&s=19

    More Republicans [candidates] fully denied the results of the 2020 election than accepted it in any form.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    Foxy said:

    That's just fluff. She has been pretty consistent in her economic liberalism throughout life.

    No handouts. Here's £100bn...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,622

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    We'll just have to introduce aluminium smelting to use up all that lovely power. Just rejoice at that news.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
    Yes, and some of the Wokefinder General brigade would get a shock too if they actually read it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    How on earth are you planning for this almighty reduction in global consumption to come about.
    It's bigger wishful thinking than DavidL's "cap might be too low".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
    Yes, and some of the Wokefinder General brigade would get a shock too if they actually read it.
    I'd be shocked if some of them read it too. Shocked that they could actually read...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    Are there any PB Tories left?

    Big G. Ironically. 😆
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    He also said ‘no amount of shale gas from 100s of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price any time soon. & with the best will in the world, private companies are not going to sell the shale gas they produce to UK consumers below market price’ https://twitter.com/huffpostuk/status/1567762218913087491
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I at least like the fact that she’s prepared to set out her beliefs. It gives a character to politics we haven’t seen for some time. Boris was just a chancer.

    Which beliefs?

    Scrapping the monarchy. Oh, that was last week...
    That's just fluff. She has been pretty consistent in her economic liberalism throughout life.
    The interesting bit is what happens when her libertarian doodles hit political and social reality.

    The signs are that reality wins (regional pay, no energy handouts) which is a relief but messy.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Pulpstar said:

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    How on earth are you planning for this almighty reduction in global consumption to come about.
    It's bigger wishful thinking than DavidL's "cap might be too low".
    The alternative is worse, so we better work it out.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    Pulpstar said:

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    How on earth are you planning for this almighty reduction in global consumption to come about.
    It's bigger wishful thinking than DavidL's "cap might be too low".
    The ramping up of solar, wind and tidal energy is a worldwide phenomenon, and that is a good thing too. The summer heatwave in China was not a 2 day affair like our own.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,708

    Pulpstar said:

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    How on earth are you planning for this almighty reduction in global consumption to come about.
    It's bigger wishful thinking than DavidL's "cap might be too low".
    The alternative is worse, so we better work it out.

    How about you turn off your computer and stop posting on PB. Every little helps, right?

    What other measures do you advocate (I'll allow you one final post to help us all).
  • What often seems to be forgotten about the Thatcher tax cuts is that they were delivered on the back of growing revenues from North Sea oil and huge privatisation programmes. I’d argue that both windfalls were wasted in that way, but they were windfalls nevertheless. Today’s Tories have nothing like that to fall back on. The risk they are taking is huge. Markets will inevitably notice that. That will make borrowing more expensive and so increase the risk. It’s right wing Corbynism, pure and simple. Maybe even worse as a lot of Corbynista borrowing would have been focused on improving the public realm and general infrastructure.

    The price cap side is not Corbynista or right wing, it is inevitable. There was no other way of doing it which would leave the economy still functioning. Of course it could have been set at a slightly different level, or delivered slightly differently, but if we had let average bills get to £5k per year the economy would collapse on a scale not seen in our lifetimes.

    My concern is that Truss knew this for the last 3 months, yet told the electorate she was campaigning to win over the direct opposite of what she ended up doing - massive state handouts funded by debt. How am I supposed to trust the Truss in 24?

    The taxation side, both no additional taxes on energy extractors and the general corporation tax cut are weird and poor choices.
    Except that she's not doing the direct opposite of what she said when campaigning. She literally said while campaigning, repeatedly, that support would be offered but that it should not be "just" support.

    People misrepresenting her kept dropping out the bit about how support would be offered and concentrated solely on the just bit.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    How on earth are you planning for this almighty reduction in global consumption to come about.
    It's bigger wishful thinking than DavidL's "cap might be too low".
    The ramping up of solar, wind and tidal energy is a worldwide phenomenon, and that is a good thing too. The summer heatwave in China was not a 2 day affair like our own.

    The main effect of China's heatwave was effectively to turn off hydro, hence more clean energy than the UK s total consumption
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
    Yes, and some of the Wokefinder General brigade would get a shock too if they actually read it.
    I'd be shocked if some of them read it too. Shocked that they could actually read...
    Talking about wokefinding, the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery for under-16s has conclusively turned out to be bollocks as I predicted (combination of badly formatted website which merged the bit re age groups treated in the hospital, which was 0-21, and treatments; clueless telephone responder probably using the same website; and malicious "inquirer").

    The funny thing was that on precisely the same evidence on the website the hospital offered fertiility treatment for newborns, yet I didn't see any Wokefinders querying this,.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-childrens-hospital-offered-gender-affirming-hysterectomies-kids-audio-deleted-webpage-reveal

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hr/children-s-national-faces-threats-over-transgender-youth-services.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    How on earth are you planning for this almighty reduction in global consumption to come about.
    It's bigger wishful thinking than DavidL's "cap might be too low".
    The ramping up of solar, wind and tidal energy is a worldwide phenomenon, and that is a good thing too. The summer heatwave in China was not a 2 day affair like our own.

    The main effect of China's heatwave was effectively to turn off hydro, hence more clean energy than the UK s total consumption
    Although that, in itself, is an argument for trying not to make them worse.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    edited September 8
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Brent Crude down at $88 this morning, lowest it’s been since January. Some good news in amongst all the gloom.

    Sterling up a cent against the US$ too.

    Gas futures also down to mid August prices which makes me wonder if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. It is possible that the energy plan will not prove as expensive as feared, which would be a great relief.
    if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. "

    Are you sure ????
    I am struggling to find the price per therm built into the Ofgem cap because there are of course a number of other factors and they focus on the price per house rather than price per unit of energy but the assumptions (and the wholesale price) was significantly higher at the time that they came up with the revised 1st October cap than it is today.

    Edit this is the month in gas futures. As I have said before the degree of volitility is extraordinary:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt/natural-gas
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    🚨 Liz Truss eyes planning shakeup

    via this morning's Playbook https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1567773126833881088/photo/1
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758
    Here in Lombardy there's hardly a PV panel to be seen, rather bizarrely given the way the sun seems to shine every day.

    Presume there was never a FIT scheme in Italy?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I at least like the fact that she’s prepared to set out her beliefs. It gives a character to politics we haven’t seen for some time. Boris was just a chancer.

    Which beliefs?

    Scrapping the monarchy. Oh, that was last week...
    That's just fluff. She has been pretty consistent in her economic liberalism throughout life.
    The interesting bit is what happens when her libertarian doodles hit political and social reality.

    The signs are that reality wins (regional pay, no energy handouts) which is a relief but messy.
    It is also clear that her Brexitism is based very much on why she was a Remainer. A belief in free trade, and a strong emphasis on City financial services, and if industries like agriculture, fisheries or regions of the country cannot compete, then let the invisible hand sort that out.

    Brexit was always led by libertarian ideologues, but needing the social conservative protectionist voters on board in order to get it through. Hence the potency of the £350 million per week to the NHS slogan.

    We are at the point in the Brexit process where Boxer is loaded into the knackers van, and the next GE will be where the voters of Red Wall and rural shires look from pig to man, and man to pig, but can no longer see a difference.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨 Liz Truss eyes planning shakeup

    via this morning's Playbook https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1567773126833881088/photo/1

    That'll play well with the Tory heartland.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,527
    Big numbers in the Russian losses update from Ukraine today.

    These are the indicative estimates of Russia’s combat losses as of Sept. 8, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1567764041090715648
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758
    edited September 8
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
    Yes, and some of the Wokefinder General brigade would get a shock too if they actually read it.
    I'd be shocked if some of them read it too. Shocked that they could actually read...
    Talking about wokefinding, the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery for under-16s has conclusively turned out to be bollocks as I predicted (combination of badly formatted website which merged the bit re age groups treated in the hospital, which was 0-21, and treatments; clueless telephone responder probably using the same website; and malicious "inquirer").

    The funny thing was that on precisely the same evidence on the website the hospital offered fertiility treatment for newborns, yet I didn't see any Wokefinders querying this,.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-childrens-hospital-offered-gender-affirming-hysterectomies-kids-audio-deleted-webpage-reveal

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hr/children-s-national-faces-threats-over-transgender-youth-services.html
    "...the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery..." = @Leon and just about no one else.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,622
    edited September 8

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    If we reduce consumption as much as we need to, then there will be a huge excess of production. New extraction developments will be economically unviable, in the North Sea, in Russia or in Qatar.

    We'll just have to introduce aluminium smelting to use up all that lovely power. Just rejoice at that news.
    We should install wind and tidal with a peak generation capacity many times our needs.

    In light winds our needs are still covered; when the wind blows hard use it to create (net zero) hydrocarbons:

    https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/hydrocarbon-renewable-energy-honeywell/

    The UK is enormously rich in wind and tidal capacity.
    Tidal I agree with. If wind is many times our needs, who is going to pay for all those turbines to idle? Companies have invested to build those turbines; if they're not being paid to generate power, do they still get paid not to generate it? That's the regime at the moment. In fact they get paid more than double not to provide energy than they get to provide it. That would be a vast bill for consumers (added on to energy bills). We could cancel constraint payments (that's what I would do), forcing wind owners to find their own solutions to store power, but I am realistic that that would dampen the 'gold rush' of building wind that we have at the moment.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited September 8
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Brent Crude down at $88 this morning, lowest it’s been since January. Some good news in amongst all the gloom.

    Sterling up a cent against the US$ too.

    Gas futures also down to mid August prices which makes me wonder if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. It is possible that the energy plan will not prove as expensive as feared, which would be a great relief.
    if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. "

    Are you sure ????
    I am struggling to find the price per therm built into the Ofgem cap because there are of course a number of other factors and they focus on the price per house rather than price per unit of energy but the assumptions (and the wholesale price) was significantly higher at the time that they came up with the revised 1st October cap than it is today.
    Isn't the cap based on rolling data over the year, so the majority of the data for a further rise in January is already built into the formula, with just a few moths to go? As well as attenuation of a rise, it slows a fall too, even before considering repayment costs of whatever today brings.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Brent Crude down at $88 this morning, lowest it’s been since January. Some good news in amongst all the gloom.

    Sterling up a cent against the US$ too.

    Gas futures also down to mid August prices which makes me wonder if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. It is possible that the energy plan will not prove as expensive as feared, which would be a great relief.
    if the OFGEM cap is actually too high. "

    Are you sure ????
    I am struggling to find the price per therm built into the Ofgem cap because there are of course a number of other factors and they focus on the price per house rather than price per unit of energy but the assumptions (and the wholesale price) was significantly higher at the time that they came up with the revised 1st October cap than it is today.

    Edit this is the month in gas futures. As I have said before the degree of volitility is extraordinary:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt/natural-gas
    If the true price is lower then its a bit less borrowing. I'd have thought you'd be in favour of that ?
    The new price cap looks fine to me
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    I haven't watched PMQs (even the snippets on the news). I suspect, as others have said, the initial civility won't last and we'll be back to the usual slanging match.

    I'd have thought your first PMQs would be the easiest for any Prime Minister as you have the advantages of time and novelty. Starmer will no doubt have learned plenty from the initial skirmishes and we'll see how his approach varies from that he came to apply to Johnson in the coming weeks.

    So, on to the great Energy Price Freeze - any hope I had the Truss administration might have been worth supporting is immediately blown apart by this piece of stupidity in extremis.

    Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.

    It is short-termist, a panicked solution predicated on 3-4 months of a zombie Government which did nothing and prepared for nothing. Ideologically, even a windfall tax on the energy companies isn't on the table so they will make grotesque profits and pay their CEOs grotesque salaries which will regularly be pointed out.

    There's little or no incentive to use less gas or electricity - why bother? The Government's going to pay the bill - more accurately, our children and grandchildren will end up paying.

    It's simple - there's no time or thought to see if those who can afford to pay the increased energy bills could actually do so - the billionaire in his mansion, the poor man at his gate - all will be treated the same. It's equality, Jim, but not as we know it.

    To add to this legacy, we'll have Ben Wallace taking more money for Defence (you do know there's a war on?) and Truss angling for her tax cut. It's obvious the public sector is going to be looking at some very tough decisions this year complicated further by the cost of the changes to the social care legislation.

    “Having read yesterday there was a notion of recouping some of the loan by defraying future price reductions it now seems Truss and Kwarteng haven't got the cojones to even do that. Instead, in pure Sunak style (the irony not lost on me), the whole lot (£100 billion, £200 billion, take your pick) is going to be met by borrowing so future generations will be paying for this nonsense which means they won't be able to do the things they want because they'll be paying billions in debt interest we will have passed on as our legacy.”

    I think the irony is lost on you actually, you do need to watch PMQs.

    The irony not just of a politician presiding over the biggest tax take since the war, who has been in government the last 10 years, ticking off the opposition for a windfall tax proposal, but her own solution to the crisis now means working family’s paying the £200B back in TAX and on BILLS for decades.

    I was left open mouthed. The irony is just INSANE.

    Yet everyone parrots, didn’t she do well, what a great day she had.

    It was surreal. She was like some Spike Milligan sketch - Maggie Thatcher in a Dalek.

    “I. Am. A. Dalek. Thatcher. You - will - be - disgraced.”
    The alternative is a million freeze to death this winter? The ridiculous windfall tax extension will raise, according to Labour perhaps 8 billion quid. Enough for a couple hundred in handouts to each family or a monthish of cap freeze. The fact they are obsessed with it suggests they have nothing to offer as a solution to the massive shit we are in. Its a massive, massive distraction
    It will not even raise 8 billion as the windfall tax has already been used by Sunak in the 37 billion including the £400 October grant

    Also where has 200 billion borrowing come from paying it back v the bills which has been ruled out

    I expect tomorrow business will receive similar support but directed at small businesses with different schemes for large companies, whose shareholders will be required to take the hit before intervention

    It is true the public want a windfall tax but Truss needs to stick to her guns as the windfall tax is a political ruse which raises very little compared to the message it sends to these companies that we need their investments in billions into the North Sea

    I thought Truss response to Blackford was excellent saying he wants a windfall tax on profits from the companies he wants to stop producing oil and gas in the North Sea
    But Woolie, Big G my debating society friends, you have to ask why previous Tory governments have used windfall taxes. Including Lady Thatchers. In 1981 Thatcher’s chancellor Howe accused high street banks of escaping a recession so he took equivalent to around a fifth of their profits from those 12 months of hardship for families. 1982 the Thatcher government did the same when when oil prices soared, and imposed a windfall tax. North Sea oil firms argued extra taxes would limit investment, but the industry flourished.

    So like I said, why do you think the Thatcher government did this, was it just for a bit of money? Or was it important to them to position themselves as being on the side of working people of this country.

    I’m not painting as standing beside Truss on this your politics is to the right of Margaret Thatcher, though some will put you on the spot with that. I think I am flagging up the difference of really rubbish politics from you and Truss, instead of what was very smart politics from Thatcher and her team. But this point sadly seems lost on you and many other Truss rampers. I’m sorry, I can’t explain it any better. 🤷‍♀️
    Unfortunately you have not explained how you would deal with mitigating peoples energy bills over the next 18 months and certainly have not provided an explanation of just how much windfall tax you would raise

    To assist, and in Starmers own words, Labour would cap the rise until April at a cost of 29 billion made up of a 8 billion windfall tax, 14 billion by cancelling the £400 grant in October and 7 billion by lower inflation and borrowing costs

    Now this is just until April when the cap is due to raise to £6,000 so to retain the cap where is the money coming from, as the windfall tax has already been used as has the 14 billion saving of the £400

    The truth is Labour would have no choice but borrow
    As I feared, you didn’t understand the point I was making at all. 🙇‍♀️

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

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

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

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

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

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

    https://whatson.parliament.uk/

    and here is what happens in a general debate

    https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/5gy0kf6u/what-happens-in-the-chamber-in-a-general-debate
    I still think the Tories are not ready to unveil the detail of their plan, discuss and defend the detail publicly, in Parliament and beyond. I think it’s a media trap to talk it up as grand unveiling when government business managers have down played the event and haven’t listed it as Ministerial Statement on order paper, so certain parts of media can then scream it’s thin on detail half baked and not ready., despite fact government is already indicating this.

    But let’s see how much detail we do get today. And how long Liz Truss hangs around in the commons after statement.

    The opposition do have the power to call it to a proper debate where government have to explain the detail, but I don’t think the opposition should, it would just be playing politics and not being constructive opposition if obvious the government isn’t ready yet.

    In my opinion it’s effectively two plans not one, the difference between for households and for business - the complication for business is where so many have already gone on contract for much higher costs?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
    Yes, and some of the Wokefinder General brigade would get a shock too if they actually read it.
    I'd be shocked if some of them read it too. Shocked that they could actually read...
    Talking about wokefinding, the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery for under-16s has conclusively turned out to be bollocks as I predicted (combination of badly formatted website which merged the bit re age groups treated in the hospital, which was 0-21, and treatments; clueless telephone responder probably using the same website; and malicious "inquirer").

    The funny thing was that on precisely the same evidence on the website the hospital offered fertiility treatment for newborns, yet I didn't see any Wokefinders querying this,.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-childrens-hospital-offered-gender-affirming-hysterectomies-kids-audio-deleted-webpage-reveal

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hr/children-s-national-faces-threats-over-transgender-youth-services.html
    "...the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery..." = @Leon and just about no one else.
    At least one other poster berated me for my ignorance and wokery.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    That may be true but since Qatari hydrocarbons are always likely to out compete the North Sea, shouldn't we focus our investment into renewables as per my 09:11 post (or is that 08:11 BST?)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
    Yes, and some of the Wokefinder General brigade would get a shock too if they actually read it.
    I'd be shocked if some of them read it too. Shocked that they could actually read...
    Talking about wokefinding, the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery for under-16s has conclusively turned out to be bollocks as I predicted (combination of badly formatted website which merged the bit re age groups treated in the hospital, which was 0-21, and treatments; clueless telephone responder probably using the same website; and malicious "inquirer").

    The funny thing was that on precisely the same evidence on the website the hospital offered fertiility treatment for newborns, yet I didn't see any Wokefinders querying this,.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-childrens-hospital-offered-gender-affirming-hysterectomies-kids-audio-deleted-webpage-reveal

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hr/children-s-national-faces-threats-over-transgender-youth-services.html
    "...the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery..." = @Leon and just about no one else.
    At least one other poster berated me for my ignorance and wokery.
    Probably just another @Leon alias.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Here in Lombardy there's hardly a PV panel to be seen, rather bizarrely given the way the sun seems to shine every day.

    Presume there was never a FIT scheme in Italy?

    As the price falls for solar panels they will transform Africa. Cheap abundant electricity, with much less pressure on Forex than current oil imports.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,145

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Next up to be cancelled - Prospect Magazine (and it’s readers):

    World’s Top Thinkers 2022: the results

    From philosophers on gender to anti-poverty campaigners, here’s who readers voted for in our annual list of top thinkers
    The votes are in and the people have spoken. From a list of 50 top thinkers we presented in the summer issue, our readers chose the philosopher Kathleen Stock as the winner—and by a significant margin. Stock’s 2021 book Material Girls argues that feminists should be worried that the biological differences between men and women, and thus the sex-based rights of women, are being eroded by “trans activist thinking.” Last year she resigned from the University of Sussex after protests by activists about her gender-critical position, turning her into an emblem for open inquiry and free speech.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/worlds-top-thinkers-2022-the-results

    The book is well worth reading, and more nuanced than many critics would have you believe.
    Are you suggesting a bunch of fanatics haven't bothered to see what's there rather than what they want to see?

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
    Yes, and some of the Wokefinder General brigade would get a shock too if they actually read it.
    I'd be shocked if some of them read it too. Shocked that they could actually read...
    Talking about wokefinding, the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery for under-16s has conclusively turned out to be bollocks as I predicted (combination of badly formatted website which merged the bit re age groups treated in the hospital, which was 0-21, and treatments; clueless telephone responder probably using the same website; and malicious "inquirer").

    The funny thing was that on precisely the same evidence on the website the hospital offered fertiility treatment for newborns, yet I didn't see any Wokefinders querying this,.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-childrens-hospital-offered-gender-affirming-hysterectomies-kids-audio-deleted-webpage-reveal

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hr/children-s-national-faces-threats-over-transgender-youth-services.html
    "...the recent PB moral panic about gender surgery..." = @Leon and just about no one else.
    At least one other poster berated me for my ignorance and wokery.
    Probably just another @Leon alias.
    No, really, or at least I don't think it was!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,622

    Good morning

    I find it mildly amusing that it seems polls have not shown a bounce for Truss when she has only been PM for less than 48 hours

    She did do well yesterday and today is extremely important, but it will take time and not just weeks for the government to show progress and of course her refusal to join the chorus of demands for a windfall tax may well be a negative, while being the right thing to do to get the producers investing in the North Sea and at last a change in the narrative to a pro business government

    I would be concerned if she is polling like this this time next year, but everything pivots around Russia and the outcome of the war

    If Putin and Russia suddenly fold for any reason then things could change overnight, or as an analyst said last night this could go on for a decade or more at which time we will all be penniless

    We should encourage investment in North Sea wind farms, but not in fossil fuel extraction. We all now know how real climate change is. We’ve made good progress in switching to other forms of energy production. We’ve got to accelerate that move.
    We should do both.

    Climate change is real but tackling climate change means reducing our domestic fossil fuel consumption over time, not extraction.

    Consuming Qatari or Russian hydrocarbons instead of North Sea ones doesn't achieve a single thing for climate change.
    That may be true but since Qatari hydrocarbons are always likely to out compete the North Sea, shouldn't we focus our investment into renewables as per my 09:11 post (or is that 08:11 BST?)
    No. See above.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Foxy said:

    Here in Lombardy there's hardly a PV panel to be seen, rather bizarrely given the way the sun seems to shine every day.

    Presume there was never a FIT scheme in Italy?

    As the price falls for solar panels they will transform Africa. Cheap abundant electricity, with much less pressure on Forex than current oil imports.
    Downside being that will merely accelerate China's takeover of the continent
This discussion has been closed.