Liz! Truss!

)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,

We are all going to do that anyhow.

The answer to your point, is a windfall tax, or nationalisation as Ernie suggests.

That along with a cap, which should be at current levels, not this further rise, is how we protect people, we can only turn the heating down so far.

I agree with Ernie’s assessment that nationalisation of everything to do with energy is the correct answer. There should be no profiteering on an essential service like domestic energy production.

Liz again sets out her stall here for all to see, she’s all about protecting obscene profits.

Where’s he drilling?

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.

Nah, you specifically referred to the fact “no one knows what energy prices will be in 18 months time” and that they might “skyrocket”, what happens to energy prices is irrelevant – if they skyrocket then a price cap will be even more important, if they fall the fact that there is a price cap will make no difference – it’s a cap.

How it’s financed, windfall tax whatever, is a different issue.

Where’s he drilling?

North Sea. The Queen will have a spectacular funeral which captures the moment and gives thanks for the bountiful rewards of limitless energy from the North Sea. It will please the gods. Hopefully.

How it’s financed, windfall tax whatever, is a different issue.

Let’s be perfectly clear the government can simply finance it.

What they bullshit to us on how they do it is another discussion.

We need to wait for that information. One thing’s for sure Starmer and his 9bn t
WFT for 28bn financing is utter hogwash. The short fall of 21bn is just simple more money from the government. He’s being totally disingenuous. I’m suprised this wasn’t bought up in the HoC.

Anyway we will see how this pans out.

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.

Centre ground has moved to criticising the financing rather than being concerned about the consumer.

It’s a bit pathetic to hear JoB talking about this. Last week it was all about fuel poverty and Martin Lewis saying he was agnostic about how it was financed.

This week it’s all about where the money is coming from. The left don’t deserve the title.

It’s a government subsidy in a time of crisis – just like the pandemic package and no one cares about that now.

(Tories are going to be Tories with taxation aren’t they?)

I’d rather shore-up the energy companies profits for a short time than see half of my customers go bust.

I’m in the print-trade and we’re often the first to see cut backs to budgets. Naah we’ll not bother with that brochure.

And you’re all talking like this is the only energy policy being worked on. It’s a rushed sticking plaster.

Be interesting to see what labour did if they did win the next election, cause I think you can retrospectively apply a windfall tax. Would be surprised if they didn’t campaign on that tbh.

I’d rather shore-up the energy companies profits for a short time than see half of my customers go bust.

Exactly.

It’s a rushed sticking plaster.

A sticking plaster which should solve the immediate problem (bar roll-out)

All those that don’t agree with it – donate the cash to someone else?

Be interesting to see what labour did if they did win the next election, cause I think you can retrospectively apply a windfall tax. Would be surprised if they didn’t campaign on that tbh.

It’s already financed by virute of your own words.

Longer term – better plan needed.

Gonny gies a break on yer MMT nonsense.

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

He’s being disingenuous his own plan is made up of 21bn of government money.

Martin Lewis saying he was agnostic about how it was financed.

Martin Lewis is still saying this. He’s been consistant. He’s done everything he can to push with help for households without entering into the politics of it. For MPs, it is their job to address the politics of it. Same goes for talking heads on the radio talking about politics… and JoB in particular has been vocal for months about the profits being made gas producers because of Putin’s actions, and how a windfall tax is really entirely uncontroversial and necessary.

Gonny gies a break on yer MMT nonsense.

How does it gets financed then before any borrowing is done?

You know – that is an ignorant comment. You can admit you don’t understand how a government spends.

The only nonsense is people that still think tax pays for things.

Martin Lewis is still saying this. He’s been consistant. He’s done everything he can to push with help for households without entering into the politics of it. For MPs, it is their job to address the politics of it. Same goes for talking heads on the radio talking about politics… and JoB in particular has been vocal for months about the profits being made gas producers because of Putin’s actions, and how a windfall tax is really entirely uncontroversial and necessary.

I’ve told you Starmer’s plan is 21bn short of windfall tax.

It’s not funded at all like he said it is.

seem Liz’s first delivery was COVID to her Maj! 😉

rone
Full Member
Gonny gies a break on yer MMT nonsense.

How it get’s financed then before any borrowing is done?

You know – that is an ignorant comment. You can admit you don’t understand how a government spends.

The only nonsense is people that still think tax pays for things.

I’m well aware the government can print money and take value from the future, it’s not a unlimited resource though. And even your MMT says that it should only be used for important things, like infrastructure and investment or it will have inflationary consequences if you are just using it like a credit card.

Letting the energy companies keep the profit with putting the burden on the taxpayers, is not good MMT policy, it’s robbing the credit card.

We get it, it’s not the solution to all our problems.

I’ve told you Starmer’s plan is 21bn short of windfall tax.

I heard you. And I already knew that was the case with Labour’s six month plan announced last month, which I acknowledged when I replied to. Learn to listen/read not just repeatedly shout us all down. The last few of us still reading your contributions might just give up on them. It still matters what money is spent on, who gains from it, who loses from it, who the government will take money back from in future. All this stuff still matters once you accept and grasp most of MMT. If the government are going with a big spend on a 18 month plan, I want a bigger chunk of the extra profits the fossil fuel producers will take from that taxed back, and the government spending elsewhere.

I’m well aware the government can print money and take value from the future, it’s not a unlimited resource though.

I’ve no idea what you are talking about.

The £££ is unlimted and not a resource by definition.

Don’t confuse printing money with goverment issuing money to pay for things. It’s standard practice for any government in this country.

And plenty don’t get it.

And even your MMT says that it should only be used for important things, like infrastructure and investment or it will have inflationary consequences if you are just using it like a credit card.

MMT says to identify the deficit in society.

The burden will not go on to tax payers it never does.

So you still need schooling?

No I’d like you to calm down about your fantasy economics.

. The last few of us still reading your contributions might just give up on them.

Rude as ****.

Then don’t respond.

The last few of us – what a remarkable comment.

No i need to to calm down about your fantasy economics.

I see no solid arguments coming from you. Fair enough.

You see Kelvin? You think the debate is done on this. This is why.

Be more self aware about the manner of your own posting.

I’m not particularly a politics expert, can you all help me out with something?

We keep referring back to Labour and / or Starmer. Does it matter beyond them currying favour ahead of an election? They’re not in power, they could promise to melt down Boris to make candles for the difference it makes. Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection. No? Have I misunderstood something?

Kier Starmer, yesterday.

Be more self aware about the manner of your own posting.

I’m nothing but informative and willing to debate.

I think you’re off here. But fine.

Nah I’m off out to film the Tour of Britain now.

Lift the moratorium on UK shale gas production. This will enable developers to seek planning permission where there is local support, which could get gas flowing in as soon as six months.

This sounds like total guff. The developers round here (quadzilla) were trying for years to prove the safety and support for fracking with no luck. Every drill attempt led to an earthquake and they had a permanent protest outside which led to congestion problems on a daily basis.

It was my understanding that they had to fill the well with concrete when it was finally banned.

How the hell are they going to prove local support, prove its safe and get production going in 6 months!?

And then what happens if/when the Tories lose the next election?

rone
Full Member
No i need to to calm down about your fantasy economics.

I see no solid arguments coming from you. Fair enough.

No wonder if you don’t even understand that printing (ok creating) money is taking value from the future.

Anyhow, that’s plenty on this nonsense, though i’m sure you’ll keep waffling on about it.

Nah I’m off out to film the Tour of Britain now.

Take a brolly!

No wonder if you don’t even understand that printing money is taking value from the future.

There is no such thing as printing money in a government spending context.

Take a brolly!

Sunny in mansfield!

This sounds like total guff. The developers round here (quadzilla) were trying for years to prove the safety and support for fracking with no luck. Every drill attempt led to an earthquake and they had a permanent protest outside which led to congestion problems on a daily basis.

Perhaps thats the plan. It may never happen.

They can then say we tried, but failed, but Labour never even wanted to try.

Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection. No? Have I misunderstood something?

Well it’s all very confusing. I thought their job was to challenge, hold to account, and offer credible alternatives to the government, with the broader aim of convincing the electorate that they should be elected to office when the next general election takes place.

But perhaps I’ve got that wrong too. Does anyone know what the point of the Labour Party is?

Middle-class protest movement?

Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection.

No they are all MPs who should be representing their constituents and the country as a whole.
That may include challenging the government and putting forward different policies but it certainly isnt to say the government is doing everything wrong (well it shouldnt be since even the worse government should get some stuff right however…).
At worse the policies dont get accepted but next election everyone remembers the screwup and votes differently and at best their policies get accepted and pushed through.

We keep referring back to Labour and / or Starmer. Does it matter beyond them currying favour ahead of an election? They’re not in power, they could promise to melt down Boris to make candles for the difference it makes. Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection. No? Have I misunderstood something?

Both sides have an eye on the public perception of the other. So if Labour start looking really good, then that will make tory MPs worry for their seats so they will be less confident in their leader. This means that they will either end up changing leader (as we just saw) and/or criticising their own party, which reduces credibility further. Remember, MPs don’t have to vote the way their leadership wants, so leaders need confidence of their MPs. The opposition has a part to play in that.

I can’t see her being PM for long – I mean she’s killed the Queen, so she’ll be looking to take that over

So the price cap will now be for two years? I wasn’t aware of that. That definitely takes us up to the next general election and completely rules out a snap one.

I’m not particularly a politics expert, can you all help me out with something?

We keep referring back to Labour and / or Starmer. Does it matter beyond them currying favour ahead of an election?

Nope, you’re right. Labour are irrelevant.

ernielynch
Free Member
So the price cap will now be for two years? I wasn’t aware of that. That definitely takes us up to the next general election and completely rules out a snap one.

yeah not that I was expecting anything else giving the current state of polls, but aye that’s that settled now.