• This topic has 16,415 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 1 day ago by dazh.
Viewing 16 posts - 16,401 through 16,416 (of 16,416 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • dazh
    Full Member

    Subsidies funded by a tax on energy suppliers to fund the subsidies.

    Wrong way round again. The subsidies came first, then the tax later. How many times does this simple concept regarding govt financing have to be explained before people like yourself will accept this simple established fact? The govt spends first, then taxes back later. You can argue about the level of tax and who pays it, but the spending, especially in the case of capital investment, always comes first.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    I don’t think it matters which came first. The fact is the industry pays for it’s own subsidies.

    You can argue about the level of tax and who pays it, but the spending, especially in the case of capital investment, always comes first.

    And the vast majority of that was private, foreign private and forign private with a state stake. Check out the UK government’s stake in wind farms as a proportion of the total, it’s tiny. Google Orsted.

    Edit: I’ve Googled for you, here you go:

    https://news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-uks-offshore-wind-capacity-owned-by-state-owned-foreign-entities-analysis-shows-12705500

    dazh
    Full Member

    I don’t think it matters which came first.

    Of course it does. Would it have got off the ground without govt intervention? No. Private investment only ramped up once they were certain it would be profitable.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    The fact is the industry pays for it’s own subsidies.

    No the customer does or, if things get to bad, then the taxpayer does.

    Check out the UK government’s stake in wind farms as a proportion of the total, it’s tiny. Google Orsted.

    Your arguments seem to be bouncing all over the place. Their direct stake is irrelevant to whether or not the windfarms were heavily subsidised to make them financially viable.
    That we dont have a proper stake is in at least part down to a flawed approach to free markets where its okay just to hand money over to private companies but not to actually have a stake in return for that cash.

    As a casual example. Just look at nuclear power plants. The only way they will happen is if the government carries all the risk and guarantees a profit.
    Without that good luck getting banks to lend.

    Edit: I’ve Googled for you, here you go:

    How kind of you. So to support your argument that its all down to the private sector you have, ermmm, provided a link showing at least half of the windfarms are supported by governments. Just not our own.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    You should check out the history of those windfarms. Wind farms have always been profitable in many European countries even without subsidies because the electricty prices are so high. German consumers were paying three times what we were in France when I spent time there about 10 years back. Subsidies, no subsidies it was always going to be viable, sure British companies wanted help but the Europeans didn’t need it to build viable wind farms. While Britain was still enjoying cheap north sea gas other countries were already looking to sustainable alternatives they could sell to consumers prepared to pay the price.

    The history will also tell you that Siemens in Germany was one of the companies that led the way while Britain had one windmill in Avonmouth IIRC. Sure governments have jumped on the bandwagon and good luck to them, but the origins are very much with private innovation.

    Nuclear is one one sector I agree is state dominated, and rightly so, the military potential needs to be in state hands.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    You should check out the history of those windfarms. Wind farms have always been profitable in many European countries even without subsidies because the electricty prices are so high.

    You might want to go and look at why the prices are high. Germany for example had statutory tariffs to pay for subsidies for renewables.
    They also provided subsidies and support for the manufacturers.
    Basically the complete opposite of free markets. It is and was a sector with major state intervention to direct towards certain goals.

    While Britain was still enjoying cheap north sea gas other countries were already looking to sustainable alternatives they could sell to consumers prepared to pay the price.

    That would be the “cheap” gas sold at international rates due to the UKs belief in the free market and so no real government involvement from the 80s onwards?

    Edukator
    Free Member

    So to bring it back full circle and the point at which I got involved, do you guys really think that Brexit isn’t going negatively impact British workers having gone through just one example where internal investment whether foreign private or foreign state/private has dwarfed UK investment?

    dazh
    Full Member

    Ed no one has said brexit hasn’t had a negative impact. But the fact is we are no longer in the EU, so worrying about what might have been is pointless, and saying that the UK govt has no power to help UK workers is clearly wrong. Even outside the EU the UK is a very rich and very powerful economy. With the right leadership and policy it can still support its population and provide the high quality jobs and prosperity which are desperately needed.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Ernie – please withdraw the accusation of lying

    Go back and read the thread if you want to attack me. I have no issue over things I have said . I have huge issue with you making up a total misrepresentation of my position

    sorry dude – your memory is letting you down

    I just have and you are indeed right – you said MPs might accept Sunak but the membership wouldn’t. I apologise unreservedly.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Edukator Free Member

    So to bring it back full circle

    This is the Starmer thread if you want to do a full circle you need to get back to Starmer. It all kicked off with the accusation that Starmer is apparently pandering to racists. So what’s the conclusion – is he?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I just have and you are indeed right – you said MPs might accept Sunak but the membership wouldn’t. I apologise unreservedly.

    No worries and thank you

    Unlike you to be innaccurate

    rone
    Full Member

    Just join the Tory party and take all the centrists that have got your back with you? (That said he’s even upset Ian Dunt with his immigration tone so maybe they won’t go with him.)

    You know I’m starting to despise this guy – he has no actual time for anything remotely progressive (green-bonds yawn) but loads of time for all the establishment garbage that is part of the problem.

    No meaningful change in my lifetime that’s for sure.

    johnx2
    Free Member

    ^^^didn’t Corbyn win that too a couple of years ago?

    [actually that’s wrong, strangely for socialist voice. It was parliamentarian of the year. Whatever. It really doesn’t mean the Spectator is on Starmer’s side – is anyone suggesting that it does? Or just that he shouldn’t go to any parties where there are lots of journalists, some of whom are right wing?]

    Edukator
    Free Member

    But the fact is we are no longer in the EU, so worrying about what might have been is pointless,

    You’ve spent two pages arguing against the need for a Swiss style deal, Dazh, claiming Britian is just fine on its own and th egovernment can spend its way out of the current mess. I’m not worrying about what might have been, I’m arguing in favour of a solution.

    So what’s the conclusion – is he?

    You’ve obviously missed a couple of pages of Starmer’s lack of enthusiasm for the EU, Ernie. As for Tory or Labour racism:

    racial discrimination
    Definition(s)

    Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights

    Judge Tory and Labour policy and British laws on that basis and draw your own conclusions.

    rone
    Full Member

    Whatever. It really doesn’t mean the Spectator is on Starmer’s side – is anyone suggesting that it does? Or just that he shouldn’t go to any parties where there are lots of journalists, some of whom are right wing?]

    No it simply means he has time for the right wing press. Whereas there’s a gaping hole of actual issues in his other areas of PR.

    Starmer reminds of the MP in – in the loop.

    Simon Foster : I have to say, Karen, I do have a clear strategy on this, which is I’m playing the long game.

    Karen Clarke : They’ve bounced us into a short game, and you just sat there like a… What do you call it in England? A ****

    dazh
    Full Member

    You’ve spent two pages arguing against the need for a Swiss style deal,

    Did I? News to me. I’d be very supportive of a Swiss style deal. What I was arguing about was that UK govt investment via fiscal/monetary policy (and other related policy such as industrial strategy and labour laws etc) would have a much more direct and beneficial impact than simply trading more with the EU. Trade is important, but without the policy to ensure the proceeds of that trade ends up in the pockets of workers it’s just a mechanism to make the rich richer and entrench economic inequality.

Viewing 16 posts - 16,401 through 16,416 (of 16,416 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.