Forum menu
Anyone guess where Starmer ís and why he's preserving a druid's silence?
Okay so I'm liking the idea of blocking the energy price cap rise.
Again it's not nearly enough but at least it's direct help in the short term.
Waiting for more detail on this as the press are reporting it as £1971. But the price cap doesn't work like that it's the unit costs.
Anyone guess where Starmer ís and why he’s preserving a druid’s silence?
Plan is to freeze the energy price cap
(Which is definitely needed)
And £6bn a year to insulate houses, would be interesting to see if this is like the green homes scheme (which was a great idea but terribly carried out)
Speech on Monday
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-ill-insulate-britain-27734712
Devil in the detail tho, obvs
Be interesting to see how the difference is picked up
Hope the idea is not for government to subsidise the difference.
I wouldn't be keen on that.
Starmer is banging on about his inflation busting project being 'costed' so the debate has become about how it's costed rather than the desperate need of something.
Dire times.
But it is at least an idea.
Labour have been publishing such “costing” information to go along with any policy announcements for the last 10 years at least. We know why they have to when the Tories don’t. But that’s UK politics for you. No point pretending otherwise. Explaining the funding is necessary for every Labour announcement, and not doing so would only increase the focus of press and public alike on taxes and money creation/debt rather than spending and investment.
Oh, and of course any serious plans for this winter include government subsidy of energy, however you dress it up. Much of it can be sold to the public as a windfall tax though, as it makes it looks like the energy producers are paying their share then, and the unfairness of the oil and gas giants making record profits while the public worry about the basics of life will be a politically raw issue once the weather changes.
about time someone came up with a plan
Cant see Truss or Sunak implementing someithing like this; Sunak ahs no specific plan so far & Truss seems to be talking about grants which yesterday were targeted at poorest but shes already u-turned and now may be for everyone
Either way government will want to come up with something similar to Starmer's plan which seems very popular or face a big backlash come price cap rise
And of course if PM Truss does adopt it she will have been undermined by starrner from the start
Labour have been publishing such “costing” information to go along with any policy announcements for the last 10 years at least. We know why they have to when the Tories don’t. But that’s UK politics for you. No point pretending otherwise. Explaining the funding is necessary for every Labour announcement, and not doing so would only increase the focus of press and public alike on taxes and money creation/debt rather than spending and investment.
Okay so I don't subscribe to that view at all as all that happens is that critics take the costing apart (2017/2019 Manifestos were fully costed - nothing new as you say) and secondly Nationalisation would be cheaper than propping the market up - if you want *TAX PAYER VALUE* - over the medium to long term.
Starmer's plan is a one off. For one period.
Besides, Kelvin - the time for BIG ideas is now. We have the opening.
Starmer is banging on about his inflation busting project being ‘costed’ so the debate has become about how it’s costed rather than the desperate need of something.
It's a valid question, no? I'd like cheaper power too, belive me! but if i'm just going to have to pay more in tax via another channel, then whats the difference?
No mention of Starmer's plan in the Mail Online today and I scrolled down until my finger (and brain) got a blister.
Top story is about a woman who got stood on by a cow.
The fact that they aren't even bothering to attack the plan over costings suggests to me thàt they are worried the phrase "freeze energy bills" would connect with the public.
"I’d like cheaper power too, belive me! but if i’m just going to have to pay more in tax via another channel, then whats the difference?"
A lot of people (millions) don't care about these details because their primary concern is not freezing to death this winter....and they fall below tax thresholds.
It’s a valid question, no? I’d like cheaper power too, belive me! but if i’m just going to have to pay more in tax via another channel, then whats the difference?
Because it doesn't need to be 'costed' in the same way that the covid package wasn't costed.
If tax becomes the reason to do something especially of urgency then the debate starts to expand beyond the current immediate need.
You don't need to be taxed.
The point is we move back to being able to afford something and it becomes the limiting factor.
Who the **** cares now that the government spent 450 billion? No one apart from John Redwood.
It was just done and quickly. if we'd have argued about who's going to pay for it we'd have been in a right mess.
No mention of Starmer’s plan in the Mail Online today and I scrolled down until my finger (and brain) got a blister.
Weak finger/googling powers, it is a huge story on the Mail Online's website:
https://www.****/news/article-11112217/Keir-Starmer-vows-29bn-FREEZE-energy-bills-six-months.html
Well it wasn't there half an hour back.
EDIT:
And I just revisited the site and it hasn't made the top 40 stories. Depends on your definition of 'huge' I suppose.
One would have thought that it would have been somewhere near the top of the page.
Because it doesn’t need to be ‘costed’ in the same way that the covid package wasn’t costed.
It does if Labour propose it. The reality of UK politics. Only the Tories can promise support without identifying where the money comes from. It’s nonsense, but UK politics sucks.
Why not invest the money on making the UK housing stock more efficient? Oh hang on Germany, Italy and France is doing this we'd rather throw money at private companies..
JeZ
Already part of Labour’s plans. But it won’t make any difference this winter, because we have a Tory government that’s just wasted enough summer when the insulation should have been going in. Today’s announcement is all about getting through this winter. A stopgap. That’s needed thanks to us electing another Tory government. And it is needed, people can not afford the bills coming up. Long term we need a government that pushes hard on fuel efficiency and onshore green energy production. We won’t get that without kicking the Tories out.
His complaints are mostly that it a stopgap to get us through the winter. It is. And that’s all it is. Hopefully the government can be bounced into doing as Starmer suggests. What it is not is a replacement for the new green deal, or a manifesto on future energy generation, storage and conservation, or a shake up of who owns and/or controls energy production and sales. Is it simply a way through the difficult winter ahead… now… over to the government… (which Truss has a key role in now and presumably will have up ‘till the next general election).
So the TLDR version is £29 billion to stop people freezing and prevent the country from coming apart at the seams vs £30 billion in tax handouts to those who don't need it.
£30 billion in tax handouts to those who don’t need it.
Allowing people to keep their own money as Liz Truss puts it, so that they can then hand it over in fuel bills to Multi nationals, all at the expense of public services, is the least transparent way of diverting public funds into private hands that these people have designed to date.
The problem with Capitalism is that they never run out of other peoples money.
There are several key criticisms from Murphy.
It's a stop gap
Is for households only (from what I can tell)
And Labour's ridiculous attitude towards affordabilty limiting their scope.
And in top for me, is it's not that much more expensive to Nationalise (especially if you use the TUC info. it's way way less - 2.85bn) This effectively brings an asset back to the country too.
Read their report
But neoliberal politicians are clearly looking for most light-touch option to satisfy the businesses too. (What business there is left in this market.)
Key is now how the Tories respond. I do think this is just about annoying enough to provoke them into something.
I think they will go on about the cost of it. Because ahem it's been fully costed, LOLS.
Covid spending precedent please.
So the TLDR version is £29 billion to stop people freezing and prevent the country from coming apart at the seams vs £30 billion in tax handouts to those who don’t need it.
Or 2.85bn if you accept the TUC report.
And Labour’s ridiculous attitude towards affordabilty limiting their scope.
It’s the voting public’s ridiculous attitude towards affordability when it comes to Labour that is the limiting factor here… and if you think Labour can ignore that while in opposition and trying to get into government, well…
As for public ownership of utilities… the quandary is that many people want it, but not enough vote for politicians that propose it at scale (in England at least).
to provoke them into something
Let’s hope so. I doubt many people will thank Labour when the government do give in and do what needs doing short term, but that isn’t the only reason to push short term policies. Let’s hope a focus on longer term energy policies can be part of the next election, and the public remember all this mess and get behind increasing energy efficiency and moving away from fossil fuels fast. That won’t be part of a Truss manifesto. It will be part of a Labour manifesto, whether Starmer is still leader or not.
It’s the voting public’s ridiculous attitude towards affordability when it comes to Labour that is the limiting factor here… and if you think Labour can ignore that while in opposition and trying to get into government, well…
Their attitude is based on the establishment repeating it over and over. How do you ever enact any change unless you start to straighten the story out?
I mentioned earlier - the evidence is the manifesto was fully costed - but it didn't matter, people were still not buying into it.
Why can't Starmer just point to the obvious - Covid spending without tax rises and increasing the national debt. "We are in an equally grim position - the mechanisms exist to pay for this - no questions."
My point being as always - it comes down to how will you pay for it everytime.
(Same way the USA's military budget is almost 1Trillion.)
Covid spending without tax rises and increasing the national debt
Apart from the fact that Covid spending was linked to tax rises and increasing the national debt.
And, yes, the “establishment” > waves arms around < does perpetuate the lie that Tory governments are good at running the finances of state, and Labour ones waste money (when evidence suggests otherwise), but Labour can’t just shrug, they have to convince the voting public otherwise.
The supporters that Labour need to get back aren't the sort to evaluate the 'costings', were talking about people who bought the £350 million for the NHS on the side of the bus nonsense.
Given that the media, RW and mainstream constantly lean into the lie concerning Tory fiscal responsibility vs Labour, then the 29 million vs 30 million argument is a good side of the bus slogan that perhaps the target audience can get their heads around.
How do you ever enact any change unless you start to straighten the story out?
I think it's partly because trust in politicians (from all sides) is at an all time low. The "National spending as household budget" model is really well understood and will be incredibly hard to remove. From politicians like Starmer or Truss/Sunak, you may as well start a conversation about moons and cheese.
I agree though, it's one of the things we should be having a better debate about in this country.
Wonder if Starmer will read this..
https://twitter.com/richardjmurphy/status/1559120409919950851?s=21&t=5CYgTB2ciB0-hkj9cj-ELw
Apart from the fact that Covid spending was linked to tax rises and increasing the national debt.
Explain please?
Because it's pretty easy to unlink.
I'd go one further and say Starmer wants to prop the private sector. And that's what the maths is all about.
dazh
Full Member
Wonder if Starmer will read this..
We need to nationalise energy production and spend big on renewables.
Keir's plan will be easy for the Tories to do better than.
I'd like Labour to point out other countries doing things well and ask why aren't we.
We need to nationalise energy production and spend big on renewables.
Aren’t we already doing that? There are solar farms all over the place, increasing numbers of wind farms, including I think the world’s biggest out in the North Sea. The biggest failing is the inability of government to stop energy companies raising their prices to unaffordable levels and making obscene amounts of money - they need to be taxed really heavily and the energy price cap frozen for at least a year.
I’d like Labour to point out other countries doing things well and ask why aren’t we.
Labour are too scared to point out that Germany, Spain, Portugal etc have heavily subsided rail travel during the fuel crisis. Talking Britain down and looking like loving Europe are charges that must be avoided at all costs to win back voters. Sad days. The approach seems to be to pretend every idea is new and “ours”… like the government stepping in to keep home fuel costs down… it’s happened in many other countries.
Went on a 1.5hr express train journey in Hungary last week, £4.50 ffs! Mate in Rutland was reporting the pubs now often empty at 5pm (unheard of), the local here was empty last night. The energy bills' impact will be widespread, small businesses, falling incomes, strike ballots, schools and hospitals, evictions, etc etc. It really is a system in crisis and the Westminster crowd seem to have no answers apart from handouts to shareholders and outlawing industrial action. Tescos here have erected a security gate and beefy geezer at the entrance due to people doing a runner. Grim times indeed but people will have to fight their own corner, no-one will do it for them.
The average person does get it. Polls show nationalisation is a popular policy.
Polls show nationalisation is a popular policy.
Been the case as long as I can remember. Now, get them to vote for a party proposing nationalisation across multiple sectors, and let's crack on with it. But then, when faced with that option, they don't trust those proposing it, and don't vote for it. Lots of individuals policies that are popular, but too many Englanders refuse to vote for politicians proposing a whole raft of them.
Went on a 1.5hr express train journey in Hungary last week, £4.50 ffs!
You can get from Manchester to Leeds for £7.50 today, about the same distance.
Listening to a Spectator podcast last night (I know) and apparently 3 out of 4 Tory voters like Starmer's plan (which I'm sure will infuriate some forum members). Starmer is in classic don't frighten the horses mode.
We can argue wether it's because he is not left wing enough, or wether he can't stray too far left because of the legacy left by Corbyn but I think Starmer has played this ome much better than I expected.
He's even made the being on holiday thing work in his favour, I liked the way he trolled Boris by saying he had a responsibility as a father as well as being a party leader and with both party leaders on holiday, the country at large seemed more eager for Starmer's return than Johnson's.
And to my first point, the whole thing has made it even more obvious how much the Tories depend on Labour for policy ideas. I think Starmer came out of yesterday looking a bit more Prime Ministerial in the eyes of the general public.
The case for nationalisation will make itself before too long.
He’s even made the being on holiday thing work in his favour, I liked the way he trolled Boris by saying he had a responsibility as a father as well as being a party leader
Yes that was a good one
I'm pleased to see that labours plan includes a push on insulation (which government should have been doing from star of summer) and pledge to incdlrease onshore wind & solar- just as Truss/ Sunak are pushing back on them to keep the bonkers membership happy
I also think that Stamer was delaying any announcements for as long as possible in order to not interrupt the Tories as they were tying themselves in knots at the hustings.
He waited until ministers started to defect from Sunak to the Truss camp. Had Starmer come out earlier then it could have potentially worked in Sunak's favour and we know who Starmer would rather face at a GE.
The Tories have committed themselves to Truss now and rendered themselves redundant for another 3 weeks. That commitment facilitated Starmer's prescice pitching of a £29 billion package against Truss's £30 billion.