Starmer is in tune with the public – politicalbetting.com

Jack W in tune with Mrs Jack W .... (entirely necessary)

On topic. Thank you TSE. What is bizarre, in what way would it actually hurt the Truss government to extend the windfall tax a bit - rather than be at odds with the voters and focus groups, so not get enough credit they should get?

It’s not Tory ideology they are following - Lady Thatcher was quick to take windfall tax from companies raking it in during recession and crisis, when everyone else was suffering. Truss is going the opposite way from how Lady Thatcher showed her the right way to go. Like I said, this government is confused and bizarre.

The Energy companies could make more than £150B from this crisis, and up to one fifth cannot be taken without it being unfair or investment getting hammered? the Thatcher government would have taken at least a fifth from energy companies profits here to partly fund the crisis plan - basing my opinion confidently on fact this exactly what Thatcher government did do to banks and energy companies in the recession hit early eighties, because here was particular industry not suffering enough as the working families and businesses, which government chose to side with via redistribution of the windfall profit - such clever politics was the foundation of Lady Thatcher’s subsequent landslide wins. Remember it was Starmer’s very first PMQ question to the new PM - do you rule out any more windfall tax, I am convinced Truss got off to an awful start giving a straight answer to that.

If the £170B ballpark figure for windfall profit is anywhere near accurate, taking one fifth, still leaving behind four fifths of massive windfall profit) the one fifth can be more than £30B. It clearly doesn’t pay all of a £150B or £220B package - everyone will be paying majority the debt off in both tax and higher bills for decades to come.

Those are the fiscal truths. The political truth is not only it is now easier for opposition to paint Truss as in pocket of fat cats, but she chose this road. Margaret Thatcher will be turning in her grave at a Tory leader choosing this route.

Truss has instantly proved she ain’t no Maggie Thatcher - she’s not in that league of politician.

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.

Good morning

Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%

I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.

Good morning, everyone.

Shocked to learn voters want others to pay more tax to help them out.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

Liz Truss's objection to windfall taxes is that they will deter future investment. We should note that (in the clip) Rishi includes an investment allowance. It is possible this device might provide some wriggle-room for the Prime Minister in future, should the government change its mind.

The same is true on other corporate taxes.

Yes, Liz Truss not only wants to throw taxpayer money at energy companies, she also wants to give them tax cuts - along with all other deep pocket, profit-making businesses - at a time when public services are in a state of serious disrepair.

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.

But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.

Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.

But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.

Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.

Yep - I agree. But they don't. And the Tories have benefited from that more than anyone else. It's good to see the tables turned for once.

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

The main effects of lower taxes for most people will be even worse public services.

It is of course open for Starmer to campaign in 2024 to increase people's taxes

How to choose a table for signing state documents.
https://twitter.com/bbclysedoucet/status/1568739382072582144

Can some horse type tell me WTF is going on here.

https://twitter.com/NoContextBrits/status/1568613008661958657

Dura_Ace said:

Can some horse type tell me WTF is going on here.

https://twitter.com/NoContextBrits/status/1568613008661958657

Neigh.

https://twitter.com/AodhBC/status/1568253423027363841

.

Morris_Dancer said:

Betting Post

F1: backed Ricciardo to top his group (versus Gasly, Ocon, and Vettel) at 3.1.

https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/09/italy-pre-race-2022.html

That’s not a bad bet, especially after McLaren’s performance in qualifying, and in this race last year.

For those who don’t want to watch the news channels, the F3 race is about to start, to be followed by F2 and Porsche Supercup before the F1.

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.

But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.

Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.

Truss needs to come right out on a bbc sofa and say “I believe the truth is important in politics. That is after all the very reason why I have found myself in this job. And the LOTO is simply not telling the truth when he pretends there’s a way to solve this problem by taxing businesses. His calculations are a fantasy. Tax on profits for oil and gas producers are 65%. Even if we raised them to 100%, which would obviously be self defeating and impossible, then at current profit rates we might raise £20bn. How much do you expect we might raise the year after if we did that?

Keir Starmer is a pleasant individual and there’s common ground between us. But he’s been totally led astray here by his researchers and does not appear to know how to dig himself out of this hole other than to keep repeating mistruths.”

Boom. Mike wins his bet.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

This debate will be turned on its head if Putin's war ends in his denouement and it seems it may not be an unrealistic dream

From GOV.UK:

"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.

This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."

Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.

Mr. Punter, is Keir Starmer indelibly stained with having served under Corbyn's leadership?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/AodhBC/status/1568253423027363841

Some quite funny comments under that. Including the fact that the photo was taken 20 years ago.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/AodhBC/status/1568253423027363841

Yeah, but the King Charles Spaniels are wagging their tails and having the time of their lives!

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

Yes, utility bills will be twice what they were last winter under the new price cap. I wouldn't expect a lot of gratitude.

Foxy said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

Yes, utility bills will be twice what they were last winter under the new price cap. I wouldn't expect a lot of gratitude.

Indeed, that's the point I made in the thread header and is kinda backs up the secondary questions in this poll, even Tory voters think the government's plans are too little.

Dura_Ace said:

Can some horse type tell me WTF is going on here.

https://twitter.com/NoContextBrits/status/1568613008661958657

The Royal Horseguards were short of a rider so they filled in using the Royal Fountain Pen Mover who was not up to the task.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Icarus said:

From GOV.UK:

"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.

This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."

Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.

Even in your comment you refer to the average household and apart from the cap there is the £400 discount and it stops April's rise to £6000, so it is not misleading

"based on current energy prices from October " - What does that mean??

Casino_Royale said:

Since an even higher percentage agree with Liz Truss's cap policy, you could easily have retitled this piece "Truss is in tune with the public".

That would have been nonsense too. I hope the editorials on this site don't try and push a party line over the next 2+ years.

We're better than that.

Look at the supplementaries and your proposed headline wouldn't work but the wider point is that Truss and her government are unlikely to get any credit for averting a disaster especially as energy bills are going to be higher even after her proposals.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Foxy said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

Yes, utility bills will be twice what they were last winter under the new price cap. I wouldn't expect a lot of gratitude.

Indeed, that's the point I made in the thread header and is kinda backs up the secondary questions in this poll, even Tory voters think the government's plans are too little.

If they’d spent any more, then the criticism would be that they were recklessly borrowing while failing to provide price singnals to reduce consumption.

This fits into a wider narrative, all that Boris Johnson grift is coming back to haunt the Tories.

It gets mentioned so regularly in focus groups.

If Labour want to ensure they win a majority at the next election they just have to list all the Tory grift in this parliament.

There's a wider issue here, the simple delays between a government decision, action on the ground, the actions having an effect and the voting public noticing the effect. It doesn't happen on the rhytmn of rolling news or top political blogs.

Most new leader bounces dissipate after a few months, because changing the face at the top and the mood music doesn't affect how Mr and Mrs Voter experience their daily life.

Most of the decisions that are going to decide the 2024 election have already happened and are making their way through the digestive tract of the British state.

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

This debate will be turned on its head if Putin's war ends in his denouement and it seems it may not be an unrealistic dream

If Putin was deposed tomorrow (which would be lovely), energy bills will still have been higher and some inflation would still be baked in. And the party in Government would still get blamed for that.

There is, to use that word again, hysteresis in the system. If things get worse and then get better again by returning to the starting point, the Government are still going to get blamed.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Since an even higher percentage agree with Liz Truss's cap policy, you could easily have retitled this piece "Truss is in tune with the public".

That would have been nonsense too. I hope the editorials on this site don't try and push a party line over the next 2+ years.

We're better than that.

Look at the supplementaries and your proposed headline wouldn't work but the wider point is that Truss and her government are unlikely to get any credit for averting a disaster especially as energy bills are going to be higher even after her proposals.

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/jz/ova733hxcoiw.png" alt="" />

How many people have any idea of what the government actually proposed, given that nothing about it has been discussed anywhere thanks to subsequent events?

Dare I suggest that polling companies all take a week or two off, because pretty much everything they’re polling now is likely to be rubbish.

Icarus said:

From GOV.UK:

"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.

This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."

Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.

GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?

bondegezou said:

Icarus said:

From GOV.UK:

"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.

This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."

Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.

GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?

Yes, but how many divisions does the Office for Statistics Regulation have?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60506565

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Foxy said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

Yes, utility bills will be twice what they were last winter under the new price cap. I wouldn't expect a lot of gratitude.

Indeed, that's the point I made in the thread header and is kinda backs up the secondary questions in this poll, even Tory voters think the government's plans are too little.

If they’d spent any more, then the criticism would be that they were recklessly borrowing while failing to provide price singnals to reduce consumption.

This fits into a wider narrative, all that Boris Johnson grift is coming back to haunt the Tories.

It gets mentioned so regularly in focus groups.

If Labour want to ensure they win a majority at the next election they just have to list all the Tory grift in this parliament.

Now that she needs to appeal to the country as a whole, rather than the Tory selectorate, I’d expect to see a lot less of the ‘my friend, Boris Johnson’.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.

Good morning

Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%

I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception

There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.

Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.

squareroot2 said:

Does it actually matter whonis in power. It will be the same arguments and little will change.. Well it's been like that for the last 70 yrs of my life

yes my observation of politics as well ! tbh I think when the tories are in power we become more socialist and when labour is in power we become less statist (just look at the record tax percentage take now) - my theory is that whichever party is in power they fear being painted as too extreme and want to court voters who they think will not like their ideology so go the other way

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Since an even higher percentage agree with Liz Truss's cap policy, you could easily have retitled this piece "Truss is in tune with the public".

That would have been nonsense too. I hope the editorials on this site don't try and push a party line over the next 2+ years.

We're better than that.

Look at the supplementaries and your proposed headline wouldn't work but the wider point is that Truss and her government are unlikely to get any credit for averting a disaster especially as energy bills are going to be higher even after her proposals.

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/jz/ova733hxcoiw.png" alt="" />

How many people have any idea of what the government actually proposed, given that nothing about it has been discussed anywhere thanks to subsequent events?

Dare I suggest that polling companies all take a week or two off, because pretty much everything they’re polling now is likely to be rubbish.

As I've said before, I think people have stopped panicking about energy, feeling the issue has been kept within bounds, but they're still very worried about the cost of living more generally. On the whole, the interruption in normal politics has been unhelpful to Truss - the media won't go back to discussing the energy package in detail in two weeks' time.

Pollsters definitely should continue to track what people think so we can see how events are shaping the mood. They're mirrors, not predictions.

squareroot2 said:

Does it actually matter whonis in power. It will be the same arguments and little will change.. Well it's been like that for the last 70 yrs of my life

Day to day it probably matters a lot less than politicos like to think. The short term answers to how much to tax and spend are mostly set by our demographics and the global economy rather than political ideology.

For some whose personal economy is closely linked to the state, public sector workers, pensioners, unemployed there is a slightly bigger connection and more chance of being a winner or loser depending on the colour of rosette.

The big positive influence governments could have, but rarely do, is investing for the future. Such a government would make a real difference, but it is hard for one to be elected because people prefer to eat the cake and keep the cake, but never to bake the bloody thing.

Dura_Ace said:

dixiedean said:

Surely the TV and radio have interviewed every single living person who ever met the Queen by now?

I think there is still one Balmoral guest we'd like to comment.

Who are they?

SouthamObserver said:

moonshine said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.

But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.

Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.

Truss needs to come right out on a bbc sofa and say “I believe the truth is important in politics. That is after all the very reason why I have found myself in this job. And the LOTO is simply not telling the truth when he pretends there’s a way to solve this problem by taxing businesses. His calculations are a fantasy. Tax on profits for oil and gas producers are 65%. Even if we raised them to 100%, which would obviously be self defeating and impossible, then at current profit rates we might raise £20bn. How much do you expect we might raise the year after if we did that?

Keir Starmer is a pleasant individual and there’s common ground between us. But he’s been totally led astray here by his researchers and does not appear to know how to dig himself out of this hole other than to keep repeating mistruths.”

Boom. Mike wins his bet.

The problem with that strategy is that it would mean Truss would then have to tell the truth. That would blow her approach to Brexit out of the water, for starters.

And the public simply point to the vast profits being made by these very same companies and call Truss a liar.

NickPalmer said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Since an even higher percentage agree with Liz Truss's cap policy, you could easily have retitled this piece "Truss is in tune with the public".

That would have been nonsense too. I hope the editorials on this site don't try and push a party line over the next 2+ years.

We're better than that.

Look at the supplementaries and your proposed headline wouldn't work but the wider point is that Truss and her government are unlikely to get any credit for averting a disaster especially as energy bills are going to be higher even after her proposals.

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/jz/ova733hxcoiw.png" alt="" />

How many people have any idea of what the government actually proposed, given that nothing about it has been discussed anywhere thanks to subsequent events?

Dare I suggest that polling companies all take a week or two off, because pretty much everything they’re polling now is likely to be rubbish.

As I've said before, I think people have stopped panicking about energy, feeling the issue has been kept within bounds, but they're still very worried about the cost of living more generally. On the whole, the interruption in normal politics has been unhelpful to Truss - the media won't go back to discussing the energy package in detail in two weeks' time.

Pollsters definitely should continue to track what people think so we can see how events are shaping the mood. They're mirrors, not predictions.

However in two weeks time after the Queen's funeral and once the Special Financial Statement has appeared, the public's focus will once again be very much focused on energy bills and cost of living and we will see the public's assessment as to whether the government's proposals are any good.

moonshine said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.

The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?

Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?

It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.

But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.

Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.

Truss needs to come right out on a bbc sofa and say “I believe the truth is important in politics. That is after all the very reason why I have found myself in this job. And the LOTO is simply not telling the truth when he pretends there’s a way to solve this problem by taxing businesses. His calculations are a fantasy. Tax on profits for oil and gas producers are 65%. Even if we raised them to 100%, which would obviously be self defeating and impossible, then at current profit rates we might raise £20bn. How much do you expect we might raise the year after if we did that?

Keir Starmer is a pleasant individual and there’s common ground between us. But he’s been totally led astray here by his researchers and does not appear to know how to dig himself out of this hole other than to keep repeating mistruths.”

Boom. Mike wins his bet.

Bring it on. Any Conservative Minister under Johnson going on a perfect accuracy campaign is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Northern_Al said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Icarus said:

From GOV.UK:

"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.

This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."

Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.

GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?

It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.

Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?

It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.

Yes, in a sale your biggest saving is always if you don't buy it at all! 👍

Foxy said:

moonshine said:

bondegezou said:

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474

Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October

The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.

It is until it is called out as a lie

What is that about lying in politics?

It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.

If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.

It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then

Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.

This debate will be turned on its head if Putin's war ends in his denouement and it seems it may not be an unrealistic dream

If Putin was deposed tomorrow (which would be lovely), energy bills will still have been higher and some inflation would still be baked in. And the
party in Government would still get blamed for
that.

There is, to use that word again, hysteresis in the system. If things get worse and then get better again by returning to the starting point, the Government are still going to get blamed.

There’s a no longer implausible scenario of European gas and power prices collapsing before winter sets in. Slava Ukraine. The general inflation seen in the world is in my view because of monetary policy bedwetting two years ago during covid. The energy and supply chain issues in China are a one time hit. The fed will soon realise that if they raise much further, they will risk needlessly turning a recession into a depression.

Despite the time I spend here, I’m not a bettor. But if I were, I would say Tory majority is underpriced right now. We’re almost at the nadir and by spring 2024 we could be seeing fast catch-up growth and an election under newly beneficial boundaries for the govt.

The battles in Ukraine have a long way to go, and at yesterday's conference a Ukrainian definition
of victory was made: Russia leaves all of Ukraine,
pays reparations and war crimes trials take place.



https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1568681541668143109?t=_UsSS4pVL1WgfaHCN3R9TA&s=19

I cannot see sanctions being dropped until a new Russian government agrees all of that. It won't all be over by Christmas.

I don’t claim it’s likely. But it’s not implausible. The route would be a continued route of Russian forces in the coming days. And then the fall of Donetsk perhaps. Followed by one of two things. An elite level coup. Or Putin being granted asylum, the Middle East probably. Pretty much every world leader will be in London next weekend, perfect backdrop for some whispered conversations.

Edit: bear in mind that the oil sanctions have had almost no impact on world supply or price levels. And gas prices have been high as everyone in Europe has assumed Russian gas will be unavailable to it. As soon as a new leader is installed and the army leaves post 2014 occupied territory, I reckon the taps will open again. Doesn’t change medium term need to pivot to other supplies but no longer such an urgency.

Jonathan said:

I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.

Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.

I can't speak for others but I'm not.

I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.

This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.