• This topic has 15,854 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 2 hours ago by Klunk.
Viewing 40 posts - 15,441 through 15,480 (of 15,855 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • kerley
    Free Member

    As it is a government and in reality can do what wants could it not just tell ofgem to get lost for a bit and set the price cap to say £1200 a year (abusing what the price cap was for but hey ho). The energy companies would let need to claim back losses from government which could be reviewed/paid as necessary
    Everyone is then instantly protected, while any hardship is temporarily felt by energy companies.

    nickc
    Full Member

    “Energy companies that cannot offer lower bills should be temporarily brought into public ownership, Gordon Brown has said”

    He’s said that it’s something that should be considered as last resort; after both loans and/or some other form of financing don’t work.

    rone
    Full Member

    He’s said that it’s something that should be considered as last resort; after both loans and/or some other form of financing don’t work.

    Yeah, doesn’t suprise me anything to prop their failing markets.

    Classical economics really has a lot to answer for.

    rone
    Full Member

    If the right-wing commentators agree – this is very hard for Starmer Island to dodge.

    rone
    Full Member

    rone
    Full Member

    Holy smoke – Green bonds ?

    rone
    Full Member

    An effective £46 off a 4200 energy bill for pre-payers.

    Jesus H Christ.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    An unfair premium paid by those on the lowest incomes should be removed. Alone it won’t be nearly enough, much more help is needed and no doubt will be proposed. But that this policy even needs proposing shows how messed things are right now. We need the Tories out. This is a good policy. It won’t be the last word on energy from Labour. And you know that. Why knee jerk react to any policy Labour propose? This one is a no brainer that everyone should support, unless they think the worst off somehow deserve to pay more.

    EDIT: Here’s a key line in that short and direct tweet…

    This is part of our energy package to tackle the cost of living crisis.

    rone
    Full Member

    An unfair premium paid by those on the lowest incomes should be removed. Alone it won’t be nearly enough, much more help is needed and no doubt will be proposed.

    Agreed, and this something from 2016 I believe and do understand there is more to come but it doesn’t bode well as your opening gambit.

    And it’s not nearly enough.

    Why knee jerk react to any policy Labour propose?

    Because it’s a dint and not good enough. I will not knee jerk when I see something substantial.

    My argument is largely built around not pushing back hard enough against the Tories. Time and time again we see these tidbits. Then as witht the windfall the Tories usurp.

    I’m afraid where we are economically is simply go big or go home.

    BillMC
    Full Member

    Anyone guess where Starmer ís and why he’s preserving a druid’s silence?

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    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

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    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

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    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?

    inkster
    Free Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    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.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11112217/Keir-Starmer-vows-29bn-FREEZE-energy-bills-six-months.html

    inkster
    Free Member

    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.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    jezzep
    Full Member

    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

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    BillMC
    Full Member

    Richard Murphy isn’t that impressed

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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).

    inkster
    Free Member

    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.

    trailmonkey
    Full Member

    £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.

    rone
    Full Member

    rone
    Full Member

    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
    https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/Public%20energy%20public%20paper%20-%20web.pdf

    But neoliberal politicians are clearly looking for most light-touch option to satisfy the businesses too. (What business there is left in this market.)

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.)

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    inkster
    Free Member

    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.

    nickc
    Full Member

    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.

    dazh
    Full Member

    Wonder if Starmer will read this..

Viewing 40 posts - 15,441 through 15,480 (of 15,855 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.