Liz! Truss!

And just saying “but they’re Tories, don’t mention it, let them get away with it” is just enabling them, pure and simple.

FFS no one has said that. But whether you like it or not the priority of voters is the direct financial impact on them, not whether shareholders in Shell get paid a higher dividend. Starmer is right in calling for a windfall tax, but he’s wrong on the scale of it, and wrong to be focusing on how a bailout is paid for. He should be calling for nationalisation of the energy companies, but he won’t do that for reasons we all know.

FRACKING

What’s the point?

Surely it’s obvious? Energy security, making money, possibly reducing prices, looking good politically to people who don’t care about climate change.

I’m not in favour of it, mind, but it’s not hard to see why people would be.

The more the LP fail to distinguish themselves from the Tories the more likely it is the Tories will be re-elected. She’s already outgunned them on the price cap (Rayner: ‘we can’t keep pouring money in’) and previously on the minimum wage IIRC.
As someone to the left of many, I was in principle for Brexit but feared in practice a weakened TU movement would be further destroyed by deregulation and so voted remain. Energy bills are only part of the forthcoming economic implosion, I expect her hand will be forced all over the place by events in the hope of political survival and the LP will be a supine onlooker arguing for fiscal responsibility.

“suspension of green levies” [ cheers in the house ]

“energy supply workforce” [ accelerating North Sea oil and gas extraction, lowering prices paid to renewable producers ]

Don’t like her or her protectionism of the fossil fuel industry but the MPs in the commons of all parties are an absolute disgrace during this announcement – you have millions of brits waiting with baidted breath to hear the details of the help package and all they can do is bray and intervene constantly to make party political points. They are not representing their constituents’ interests with this. Just let the announcement be made in full then debate the details…grrrrrr

the lib dems on here say she is

Once again, is this a new code word?

is this a new code word?

It’s ‘code’ for being lib dems. What bit of that don’t you understand?

grrrrrr

It does sound awful. It’s often like this. The whole “two sides of the house” competitive noise thing turns people away from politics. They should look at shutting the whole place down, and move MPs into a new modern chamber.

And BOOM that’s the ban on fracking now been lifted. **** the planet and renewable energy generation, why not.

I think this taxpayer funded price cap is an incredibly dumb decision.

The price of gas/oil and any commodity is set by the supply and demand balance.

We have less gas than less winter because of Putins antics, so the price will keep rising until demand drops to match the new lower output. Basically we have to suck it up, turn the heating down and wear more layers until we can build up alternative renewable energy sources.

If Truss is subsidising our energy bills (running up debts for our children to pay off), then the natural feedback mechanism is broken and people will still be wearing shorts and T-shirts in the winter with the heating set on 25degC – the price will keep rising funnelling more cash to the energy companies and putting U.K. PLC in deeper debt. The only winners will be the energy companies.

At least she’s united the opposition benches.

people will still be wearing shorts and T-shirts in the winter with the heating set on 25degC

No, they won’t. This winter’s domestic unit prices are huge already ahead of this winter. Far higher than last winter. There will still be downward pressure on energy use due to high costs. For the many not the few anyway.

The only winners will be the energy companies.

That’s what needs addressing. Truss is changing things to make sure that renewable producers aren’t winners… nothing to restrain the huge wins for the fossil fuel companies… just help to extract more.

If Truss is subsidising our energy bills (running up debts for our children to pay off), then the natural feedback mechanism is broken and people will still be wearing shorts and T-shirts in the winter with the heating set on 25degC – the price will keep rising funnelling more cash to the energy companies and putting U.K. PLC in deeper debt.

You’re not advocating letting the markets decide, are you?

Starmer doing well on emphasising who’ll pay and who’ll benefit.

If Truss is subsidising our energy bills (running up debts for our children to pay off), then the natural feedback mechanism is broken and people will still be wearing shorts and T-shirts in the winter with the heating set on 25degC

Well they will still be paying more than double what most were paying last winter.

This scheme is simply to avoid the economy collapsing. Which it would of if this was left unchecked.

I don’t agree with this scheme as it is, it should been a windfall tax on energy companies not something we will be paying for years to come.

Starmer doing well on emphasising who’ll pay and who’ll benefit.

And where we went wrong as a country, stopping on-shore renewables ramp up and making us vulnerable to gas prices. Truss is just going to make us MORE vulnerable to gas prices in future.

I think this taxpayer funded price cap is an incredibly dumb decision.

So you think allowing the economy to collapse is a price worth paying to protect the principle of free markets? Do you even have any idea what economic collapse means? You will suffer unimaginably if it happens, why do you want it to happen? I presume you’ve stocked up on tinned food and bottled water?

BTW Starmer doing much better than yesterday. Focusing on the fairness and morality of allowing energy companies to profit as a result of Putin’s war and supporting renewables rather than the minutae of govt financing. In contrast Truss struggled to explain what she was going to do and why it was the right thing. Starmer won that hands down.

Theresa May sounds very happy we have a new PM, anyway.

BTW Starmer doing much better than yesterday.

Sounded very much like Miliband (the new Ed, not the one we saw as leader) wrote much of that little speech (I could hear him delivering it)… it was much needed.

So you think allowing the economy to collapse is a price worth paying to protect the principle of free markets? 

I’m not convinced that’s the only alternative.

and people will still be wearing shorts and T-shirts in the winter

Sod T-shirts and shorts – I’ll just be wearing my speedos! 🙂

This plus the £400 rebate means I’ll be better off for the next 6 months to the tune of about £40 a month.

Which shouldn’t be the case without means testing everyone, but that would cost too much and take too long.

Theresa May sounds very happy we have a new PM, anyway.

Possibly because every new PM since her makes her look better and better?

I think this taxpayer funded price cap is an incredibly dumb decision.

The price of gas/oil and any commodity is set by the supply and demand balance.

We have less gas than less winter because of Putins antics, so the price will keep rising until demand drops to match the new lower output. Basically we have to suck it up, turn the heating down and wear more layers until we can build up alternative renewable energy sources.

If Truss is subsidising our energy bills (running up debts for our children to pay off), then the natural feedback mechanism is broken and people will still be wearing shorts and T-shirts in the winter with the heating set on 25degC – the price will keep rising funnelling more cash to the energy companies and putting U.K. PLC in deeper debt. The only winners will be the energy companies.

There was a piece in The Spectator saying similar on Tuesday:

The madness of Truss’s energy price cap.

I don’t normally agree with what they write there but this seems to be right to me. This price cap should be paid for by a combination of Windfall Taxes, using that to reduce people’s bills and to encourage the investment in more robust energy supplies in the future. All this current solution does is protect corporate profits at the expense of limiting our options to respond to any further issues.

I’m not convinced that’s the only alternative.

I’m all ears.

Someone made the point that Starmer might have a problem because Truss is more serious than Boris. To be honest Starmer is a Lawyer, his trade is in serious, so in theory he should fair well against Truss and a more conversational style of exchanges.

Guess we’ll find out over the next few months, thought he done well there.

Never mind most of us having a real incomes cut by another 10% this year. Got to protect those big company profits though…

If we can’t afford to buy, there are no profits.

Yes, that’s exactly it 🙄

The alternatives have been discussed in the relevant thread, market reform would be another option.

Oh so now voters now have to check on STW to see what options Labour might consider in 6 months time? ffs 🙄

Labour needs to come up with credible proposals to put to voters and potential supporters.

I certainly support Labour’s call for a windfall tax but limiting their price cap to 6 months when the Tories are suggesting 3 times that isn’t particularly appealing.

Nor am I particularly impressed by their fiscal prudence attack line – it sounds rather thatcherite to me, and by the way I believe that Thatcher was the first to come with the idea of a “windfall tax”, in her case to deal with the embarrassingly high profits made by the banks.

For me the solution to runaway profits made by a monopoly critical industry is nationalisation – not windfall taxes.

Something big going on in the House of Commons.

Balmoral?

I think the Labour 6 month energy plan is better than what Truss is offering.

No one knows what energy prices will be in 18 months time, they could skyrocket or they could plummet, especially if the global economy goes into a deep recession and demand falls.

I remember in the book ‘Black Swan, which called out the 2008 crash before it happened, (citing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the likely culprits) the author mentioned that people are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to predict next year’s oil prices whilst he, (a hedge fund manager no less) said that if the wanted to know next year’s oil price he’d ask his taxi driver.

If we can’t afford to buy, there are no profits.

You’ve missed the memo… the government are going to be buying energy for us… for now… so the fossil fuel company profits are coming from the government… also while it’s true that many of us can’t afford to buy… a few others are still dripping in money… income restraint has been for the lower and middle waged people only… huge increases have been happening for others.

Scrapping green levies and nothing to encourage energy saving (insulation, replacement windows and doors) or looking at things like micro-generation, remove VAT on solar panels – the only ‘green’ thing about this is the volume of bank notes being printed.

I’m not convinced that’s the only alternative.

Why? Do you think small businesses can absorb the extra cost of their energy bills increasing by a factor of 6? They can’t. If they don’t cap bills for both households and businesses (and TBH I didn’t hear anything from Truss about business support) then hundreds of thousands, if not millions of businesses will go bust, resulting in millions of jobs being lost. Investment across the economy will collapse, supply chains will collapse, inflation will accelerate out of control and the value of savings and pensions will be wiped out. Doing nothing about energy bills will unleash economic armageddon like we’ve never experienced. If you seriously think not doing anything is a viable option, then you should start stocking up on supplies.

grrrrrr

@pedlad : Well… apparently Truss chose this “interruptions welcome” style of address, so that she could get helpful questions from her benches. So the noise and appealing for a chance to ask questions was her choice, she could have had an uninterrupted way of presenting her policies but she chose not to.

No one knows what energy prices will be in 18 months time, they could skyrocket or they could plummet, especially if the global economy goes into a deep recession and demand falls.

So what is the problem with having a 18 month price cap then? Are you suggesting that the government might not be able to afford a price subsidy if prices “skyrocket”? So how will households and businesses cope?

And I can’t see any problem if prices actually fall – can you?

Balmoral?

Jeez that’s all we need. Would be somewhat ironic though if the effort of appointing Truss tipped her over the edge. 😳

Buckingham Palace:

"Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision. The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral."

— Chris Mason (@ChrisMasonBBC) September 8, 2022

So you think allowing the economy to collapse is a price worth paying to protect the principle of free markets? Do you even have any idea what economic collapse means? You will suffer unimaginably if it happens, why do you want it to happen? I presume you’ve stocked up on tinned food and bottled water?

No, of course not. You have misunderstood what I’m saying.

I’m against us borrowing billions to put directly into the energy companies pockets.

Ultimately we need to use less energy this winter because the supply isn’t there and no amount of subsidy is going to change that, a rousing call to arms from Truss (never going to happen)for us all to turn the heating down a few degrees and see how long we can go before putting the heating on would be a start, this would bring the price of gas down which in turn would hurt Putin and hampen his war effort. Longer term we need to invest more in renewables and provide grants to improve the insulation in our homes.

Also I don’t see a problem in having some level of subsidy but this should be taken from the energy company profits. It’s not actually hurting them at all. The cost of gas/oil production has not suddenly gone up, so they’d still be making bumper profits if it was capped at its current rate, all it does is stop them making extra profits from Putins war.

You have misunderstood what I’m saying.

Deliberately, perhaps. He gave you the chance to explain your own position very clearly though. I for one agree with you.

Ultimately we need to use less energy this winter because the supply isn’t there

Evidence for that? I’ve seen no indication that supply is at risk, the problem is the increase in the price of energy as a result of speculation on international wholesale markets. If that increase is passed on to conusmers then the economy will collapse. It’s as simple as that.

Even if we could reduce our demand (which will already be happening naturally) we couldn’t reduce it enough in the short term to absorb the impact of higher prices (how does a chip shop or restaurant instantly use 6 times less gas?). We have a simple choice, protect consumers from interstallar energy prices, or don’t. If we don’t it will be enormously more costly to the economy and people’s lives than if we do.

Jeez that’s all we need. Would be somewhat ironic though if the effort of appointing Truss tipped her over the edge. 😳

My BIL is a Captain in the navy and has been drilling for the funeral this weekend

Truss will looove the opportunity to drape herself in the pageantry 🙄

“So what is the problem with having a 18 month price cap then?”

An 18 month price cap that protects energy companies profits versus a six month plan that includes a windfall tax and a chance to re-evaluate the situation come spring.