energy prices

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

Cool I can’t get on board with that type of attitude though. I’ll be quite happy if my bills don’t double on October. 👍

 

What attitude? How exactly would I go about refusing help when the government are writing big power an enormous cheque?

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Cool I can’t get on board with that type of attitude though. I’ll be quite happy if my bills don’t double on October. 👍

 

Me too, there's a massive amount of people in the middle who'd simply become the 'new' poor and we'd then be looking for another £40bn to help them out in 18-24 months time.

 

That said, this should be being at least partially funded via a windfall tax.

[Dazo]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Me too, there's a massive amount of people in the middle who'd simply become the 'new' poor and we'd then be looking for another £40bn to help them out in 18-24 months time.

 

That said, this should be being at least partially funded via a windfall tax.

I’m not a fan of windfall tax but totally agree the energy companies should be contributing to this, whatever way that is I’m not fussed at this stage. 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

I’m not a fan of windfall tax but totally agree the energy companies should be contributing to this, whatever way that is I’m not fussed at this stage. 

 

I'm not either, but that's just because I don't believe in mixing and matching ideological systems. Pragmatically I'd be in favour of it this time around.

[pablo]

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Bullshit, the government can move exactly as quickly as it wants to.

 

This is an ideological choice.

 

I'm not sure there is the time to introduce a means-tested solution here tbh. 

[Unknown user]

9 minutes ago, Dazo said:

I’m not a fan of windfall tax but totally agree the energy companies should be contributing to this, whatever way that is I’m not fussed at this stage. 

If you think it should be done differently surely it does matter how it's done?

Edited September 6, 2022 by Smithee

[Dazo]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

What attitude? How exactly would I go about refusing help when the government are writing big power an enormous cheque?

The attitude that it’s never good enough. You’ll never be happy. You scream for help, help arrives then you scream for something else. Give the money to poor ? That’s fine and a totally different argument but the fact is the poor we’re already struggling, energy costs won’t change that. This energy crisis is making hard working people on good wages the poor, the country wouldn’t function without these people in the middle. They pay a lot of tax and contribute hugely to the economy while taking very little. They deserve the help through this. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, pablo said:

 

I'm not sure there is the time to introduce a means-tested solution here tbh. 

 

 

Prices are going up because the companies aren't being prevented from doing it, that's the easiest temporary solution in the world. 

 

Again, this is an idealogical choice.

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

If you think it should be finye differently surely it does matter how it's done?

We don’t have the time to work something out differently. The lip is needed right now. Once that arrives then yeah absolutely let’s look at other ways. We will all pay for this one way or another anyway. 

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

The attitude that it’s never good enough. You’ll never be happy. You scream for help, help arrives then you scream for something else. Give the money to poor ? That’s fine and a totally different argument but the fact is the poor we’re already struggling, energy costs won’t change that. This energy crisis is making hard working people on good wages the poor, the country wouldn’t function without these people in the middle. They pay a lot of tax and contribute hugely to the economy while taking very little. They deserve the help through this. 

 

Don't smokescreen with a rant, it's surely beneath us all.

 

I was answering your point - why don't I refuse the help?

 

How exactly would I do that?

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Don't smokescreen with a rant, it's surely beneath us all.

 

I was answering your point - why don't I refuse the help?

 

How exactly would I do that?

That wasn’t a rant. 😂

 

My suggestion of refusing the help wasn’t actually a serious one. Apologies you missed that sarcasm. 

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Dazo said:

The attitude that it’s never good enough. You’ll never be happy. You scream for help, help arrives then you scream for something else. Give the money to poor ? That’s fine and a totally different argument but the fact is the poor we’re already struggling, energy costs won’t change that. This energy crisis is making hard working people on good wages the poor, the country wouldn’t function without these people in the middle. They pay a lot of tax and contribute hugely to the economy while taking very little. They deserve the help through this. 

 

"They deserve"

 

The calling card of the Tory.

 

The middle classes might not need help as much, but they deserve it more than the poor.

 

**** me.

[Unknown user]

Just now, Dazo said:

That wasn’t a rant. 😂

 

My suggestion of refusing the help wasn’t actually a serious one. Apologies you missed that sarcasm. 

 

So if I'm not debating the points you make what are we doing?

 

It matters massively how help is given, stupid to say otherwise.

[Dazo]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

"They deserve"

 

The calling card of the Tory.

 

The middle classes might not need help as much, but they deserve it more than the poor.

 

**** me.

See your blind hatred always has to spoil it Smithee by adding words to my posts. I never said anyone deserves more help then anyone else. I’m saying the often overlooked people in the middle also deserve help this time. 😊

Edited September 6, 2022 by Dazo

[Taffin]

We're in September staring down the barrel of a gun and the finger's already on the trigger. If prices are frozen, that is good. The ideological stuff is of lesser importance right now; it doesn't make it right. People's worries were energy prices, that worry looks as though it's going to be mitigated...albeit by kicking the problem down the road.

[pablo]

I bet you'd have to look long and hard to find any criticism from a smurf regarding non means-tested "freebies" given out by the Scottish Government.  The end justifies the means and all that.

[Taffin]

Means testing just legitimises the system...we'll make all the money and take all the capital and feed you scraps and everyone's happy.

 

State support should be for all, but the cost of that is equitable spread of wealth.

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, Dazo said:

See your blind hatred always has to spoil it Smithee by adding words to my posts. I never said anyone deserves more help then anyone else. I’m saying the often overlooked people in the middle also deserve help this time. 😊

Take out "more than the poor" then.

 

"The middle classes might not need help as much, but they deserve it"

 

That's literally what you were saying.

 

It's no different from Sunak telling the good citizens of Twatsworth on the Wold how he's diverting money away from the inner cities to them because they deserve it.

 

But I'm not really that interested in that side of the debate, no one should be paying these prices.

 

My bone is with the argument that it shouldn’t matter where you sit on this. It absolutely matters, there's a massive, massive difference in how this could be approached.

[DETTY29]

Whilst we are arguing who is most deserving of support how much in 'legal' tax avoidance doesn't make it to the exchequer every year despite their companies for all intent and purposes being UK based bar the signature on a legal document?

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Whilst we are arguing who is most deserving of support how much in 'legal' tax avoidance doesn't make it to the exchequer every year despite their companies for all intent and purposes being UK based bar the signature on a legal document?

 

 

It's precisely my argument that deserving shouldn't come into it

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It's precisely my argument that deserving shouldn't come into it

 

Then what's the pretence for having an issue with it?

 

If we strip away 'desrves', you're left with a free for all state of nature. Which isn't far off from where we've arrived. 

 

If nobody deserves anything then what's wrong with the status quo?

 

Deserving seems to be the crux of it. The energy companies don't deserve help, the middle classes don't deserve help and the poor do deserve help. It seems like the central tenet of your argument.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Taffin

[Unknown user]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Then what's the pretence for having an issue with it?

 

If we strip away 'desrves', you're left with a free for all state of nature. Which isn't far off from where we've arrived. 

 

If nobody deserves anything then what's wrong with the status quo?

 

Pretence? Well that's quite patronising.

 

I have an issue with the government giving billions of taxpounds to massive companies that we'll have to pay back, just so they can still charge massive prices and protect their shareholders. We could have had the same result by freezing prices and helping the poorest.

 

The deserving thing was a side issue, a pet hate, exactly the type of crap the Tories always come out with.

Government help should be primarily about the needful.

 

Again though, I'm saying everyone should be helped, just not in this way.

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Pretence? Well that's quite patronising.

 

It's not intended to be, but if you're saying deserving shouldn't come into but then also taking a stance that appears entirely based on who deserves stuff then I don't think it's an unfair choice of word.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I have an issue with the government giving billions of taxpounds to massive companies that we'll have to pay back, just so they can still charge massive prices and protect their shareholders. We could have had the same result by freezing prices and helping the poorest.

 

Why not? Do they not deserve it?

 

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

The deserving thing was a side issue, a pet hate, exactly the type of crap the Tories always come out with.

Government help should be primarily about the needful.

 

Does being needful make someone deserving?

 

Government should be about society as a whole. Providing a safety net and state support is just one of it's many functions imo.

 

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Again though, I'm saying everyone should be helped, just not in this way.

 

It's this way, or no way. That's the realpolitik of where we are.

 

I don't disagree with your wider point and it isn't how I'd do it either but it is what it is. Support imminent and throwing your toys out the pram because it's not the support you wanted does smack of cutting your nose of to spite your face...also something I tend to favour too tbh 😂

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

It's not intended to be, but if you're saying deserving shouldn't come into but then also taking a stance that appears entirely based on who deserves stuff then I don't think it's an unfair choice of word.

 

 

 

Why not? Do they not deserve it?

 

 

Does being needful make someone deserving?

 

Government should be about society as a whole. Providing a safety net and state support is just one of it's many functions imo.

 

 

It's this way, or no way. That's the realpolitik of where we are.

 

I don't disagree with your wider point and it isn't how I'd do it either but it is what it is. Support imminent and throwing your toys out the pram because it's not the support you wanted does smack of cutting your nose of to spite your face...also something I tend to favour too tbh 😂

I'm not throwing my toys out at all, it seems people have problems discussing things.

 

Pretence means you think I'm pretending, and that's pretty patronising.

 

To be clear, the deserving thing was in reaction to a side comment, nothing more, I've never said everyone shouldn't be helped with this.

 

But I think it's a horrific way to do it, the treasury loaning tens of billions to massive companies that taxpayers have to pay back.

 

In truth, I'm unlikely to pay income tax again, so this isn't about me me me, but I'll say again, this is an ideological choice to help big business at the taxpayer's expense.

 

Plus, prices should be rolled back by the way.

[joondalupjambo]

By not doing anything over the last two to three months, and waiting until the situation is as serious as it is then the opportunity arises whereby Government can say yeah we know this is not a perfect solution but we need to act now because there is no time to get a solution that fits all.  An excuse just to do what their ideology demands.  Clever.  

[Unknown user]

Just now, joondalupjambo said:

By not doing anything over the last two to three months, and waiting until the situation is as serious as it is then the opportunity arises whereby Government can say yeah we know this is not a perfect solution but we need to act now because there is no time to get a solution that fits all.  An excuse just to do what their ideology demands.  Clever.  

This man kens the score

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

By not doing anything over the last two to three months, and waiting until the situation is as serious as it is then the opportunity arises whereby Government can say yeah we know this is not a perfect solution but we need to act now because there is no time to get a solution that fits all.  An excuse just to do what their ideology demands.  Clever.  

 

Especially when you consider that Boris was giving it "well let's wait and see what OFGEM say about October's cap" when they use a defined algorithm to work it out and it was known well in advance what it would be, to the penny. It's all so dishonest.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, pablo said:

 

It's not just the poor who will enjoy the benefits of a price freeze, it'll be everyone.

 

It would be better as always to target those most in need. But I don't think it's a simple task to cross reference income per address with energy consumption. And certainly not quickly. Time is against us here.

It is.

How long has the Westminster Government sat on the crisis?

Arseholes.

[pablo]

Just now, The Real Maroonblood said:

It is.

How long has the Westminster Government sat on the crisis?

Arseholes.

 

Don't disagree. But most of us wanted Boris to go,  hence the summer spent asleep at the wheel.

 

Hopefully this spike will only last this winter and any price freeze will be a one off requirement until a more dynamic solution is found (if high prices continue over years)

 

Let's not forget much of this is a result of Putin's economic warfare on the West and his illegal war in Ukraine. 

 

We'll need to globally come up with a multi answer solution. Reducing consumption, renewables, increased production, consider nuclear. Etc etc 

[GBJambo]

So Truss is going to cap the energy prices at there highest levels 😡

 

They need reduced ffs

[The Mighty Thor]

2 hours ago, pablo said:

 

It's a bit of an unusual situation with this new government. No matter what you think of the Tory party or Liz Truss personally, we sort of need her to be successful over the next two years or we're all screwed.

 

 

Oh you're so close to getting it. So close. 

 

The reason we're all screwed is the last 12 years. The rampant cronyism of the last 3 years. The same pack of the utterly imbecilic is being re-shuffled and will be re-dealt as a brand new shiny government under a brand new shiny leader.

 

Truss is a swivel eyed loon being worked from the back by a really sinister bunch of ne'er do wells who do not have your interests or the interests of the UK (or indeed the precious union) at heart. Disaster capitalists are at the wheel and they're making out like gangbusters emptying the public purse.

 

 

[Don Dan]

Any help we get for bills will need to be paid I heard earlier. So it will be an other loan! I don’t need a loan especially as I’ve no debt. 

[Taffin]

40 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I'm not throwing my toys out at all, it seems people have problems discussing things.

 

Pretence means you think I'm pretending, and that's pretty patronising.

 

It reads as though you are pretending on one side of it. It either is about who deserves stuff, or it isn't. You can't claim both. I don't think calling that out is patronising but if you're taking it that way then I apologise.

 

I'm of the belief you believe who deserves stuff is important and is why your outlook places people over profit (again, I'm in total agreement), but you're pretending it isn't about that to make another point about people saying those who don't work don't deserve it (which Dazo didn't say) by saying it's not about who deserves what when really it's absolutely about who deserves the money available.

 

I don't believe big energy companies deserve the support, I do also believe everyone up to and including the fabled middle class are deserving of support on their energy bills.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

To be clear, the deserving thing was in reaction to a side comment, nothing more, I've never said everyone shouldn't be helped with this.

 

But I think it's a horrific way to do it, the treasury loaning tens of billions to massive companies that taxpayers have to pay back.

 

In truth, I'm unlikely to pay income tax again, so this isn't about me me me, but I'll say again, this is an ideological choice to help big business at the taxpayer's expense.

 

 Of course it's an ideological choice, but I'll say it again...it is this or nothing. What would you have preferred? The past is gone.

 

I'd totally respect if you said you'd rather have nothing as it's more principled on the subject than I'm being and I'd admire that. I've folded like a deck of cards and I'm just happy people may be able to afford their energy bills now.

 

40 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Plus, prices should be rolled back by the way.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Taffin

[JudyJudyJudy]

35 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Don't disagree. But most of us wanted Boris to go,  hence the summer spent asleep at the wheel.

 

Hopefully this spike will only last this winter and any price freeze will be a one off requirement until a more dynamic solution is found (if high prices continue over years)

 

Let's not forget much of this is a result of Putin's economic warfare on the West and his illegal war in Ukraine. 

 

We'll need to globally come up with a multi answer solution. Reducing consumption, renewables, increased production, consider nuclear. Etc etc 

Covid and furlough were/ are factors too . Don’t fall into the narrative about Ukraine 

[SectionDJambo]

24 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Oh you're so close to getting it. So close. 

 

The reason we're all screwed is the last 12 years. The rampant cronyism of the last 3 years. The same pack of the utterly imbecilic is being re-shuffled and will be re-dealt as a brand new shiny government under a brand new shiny leader.

 

Truss is a swivel eyed loon being worked from the back by a really sinister bunch of ne'er do wells who do not have your interests or the interests of the UK (or indeed the precious union) at heart. Disaster capitalists are at the wheel and they're making out like gangbusters emptying the public purse.

 

 

I've thought for some time that Truss is being fed her lines by the party within the party. A gang of individuals who couldn't be elected PM themselves, but have managed to grab control of the parliamentary Conservative party. It's probably the reason she's been making policy announcements and then having to back track on them immediately.

The make up of her Cabinet will be interesting. She's only got a short time to get herself electable at a General Election. Is she being hung out to dry by the characters lurking in the shadows? They lost control, temporarily, because Johnson couldn't help but be Johnson and the "herd" got too embarrassed to keep supporting him. Is this the start of them trying to take back control? 

[Dazo]

54 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I'm not throwing my toys out at all, it seems people have problems discussing things.

 

Pretence means you think I'm pretending, and that's pretty patronising.

 

To be clear, the deserving thing was in reaction to a side comment, nothing more, I've never said everyone shouldn't be helped with this.

 

But I think it's a horrific way to do it, the treasury loaning tens of billions to massive companies that taxpayers have to pay back.

 

In truth, I'm unlikely to pay income tax again, so this isn't about me me me, but I'll say again, this is an ideological choice to help big business at the taxpayer's expense.

 

Plus, prices should be rolled back by the way.

No one has a problem discussing this as this thread clearly shows so I’ve no idea how you got to that conclusion. 
 

You jumped on the word deserve to try and make this about class or wealth to chuck about a few Tory insults in my direction. I was talking about a specific group in the middle who are so often overlooked when it comes to tax cuts or handouts. I did not say or in any way mean they deserve it any more than anyone else. Pick any word you want but this huge group of tax payers in the middle need help and it’s absolutely right they get it. 

[pablo]

10 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Covid and furlough were/ are factors too . Don’t fall into the narrative about Ukraine 

 

You're not seriously suggesting that the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't having a bearing on gas supply to Europe? 

[Victorian]

30 minutes ago, Imaman said:

Any help we get for bills will need to be paid I heard earlier. So it will be an other loan! I don’t need a loan especially as I’ve no debt. 

 

It's not a personal loan.  You wont have debt.  The providers borrow from a central fund and,  at some point,  they repay it and claw it back from customers with a levy on all bills.  

 

Customers are not being attributed personal debt.

[Unknown user]

31 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

It reads as though you are pretending on one side of it. It either is about who deserves stuff, or it isn't. You can't claim both. I don't think calling that out is patronising but if you're taking it that way then I apologise.

 

I'm of the belief you believe who deserves stuff is important and is why your outlook places people over profit (again, I'm in total agreement), but you're pretending it isn't about that to make another point about people saying those who don't work don't deserve it (which Dazo didn't say) by saying it's not about who deserves what when really it's absolutely about who deserves the money available.

 

I don't believe big energy companies deserve the support, I do also believe everyone up to and including the fabled middle class are deserving of support on their energy bills.

 

 

 

 Of course it's an ideological choice, but I'll say it again...it is this or nothing. What would you have preferred? The past is gone.

 

I'd totally respect if you said you'd rather have nothing as it's more principled on the subject than I'm being and I'd admire that. I've folded like a deck of cards and I'm just happy people may be able to afford their energy bills now.

 

I talk about who needs help, not who deserves help.

 

And I'll say again, it was an aside about something that everyone was up in arms about when it was Sunak saying it.

 

The prices should not be going up, I can't be any clearer about that. That would help everyone.

[Mikey1874]

Truss has said she'll look at the energy system. That's the true measure to judge her.

 

Cheap renewable electricity being expensive because its linked to the gas price for example. 

[WorldChampions1902]

15 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I talk about who needs help, not who deserves help.

 

And I'll say again, it was an aside about something that everyone was up in arms about when it was Sunak saying it.

 

The prices should not be going up, I can't be any clearer about that. That would help everyone.

What this Junta is choosing to ignore, is the benefit to its own wider finances by limiting the surging energy prices. It’s reckoned that these price rises have added 4%+ to the inflation figures. How much does that save the government if inflation is/was 6% instead of 10%? Therefore the headline £100 bn costs for any new measures are significantly less.

Edited September 6, 2022 by WorldChampions1902

[Victorian]

Just now, WorldChampions1902 said:

What this Junta is choosing to ignore, is the benefit to its own wider finances by limiting the surging energy prices. It’s reckoned that these price rises have added 4%+ to the inflation figures. How much does that save the government if inflation is/was 6% instead of 4%? Therefore the headline £100 bn costs for any new measures are significantly less.

 

Correct.  The wider economic equation has to be considered.  Some economists have calculated inflation to ease by 4% to 5% immediately due to a price freeze.  Even just the national debt interest will benefit significantly from the lower inflation.  Averting real economy damage such as businesses closing will prevent further inflationary pressure and protect the overall tax yield.

 

Nationalisation is the primary solution.  It aint happening.  This is the secondary solution.  It gives people a chance to afford bills.  Assuming business energy can be included,  it helps businesses continue trading.  It protects the economy from likely 25% inflation in 2023.  It averts a looming financial markets run on sterling,  which would be catastrophic.

[Smoked-Glass]

Trus says she's going to act today or soon.

 

Get it sorted.

 

Can someone in a nutshell tell me why profits can't just be put on hold for now?? Just for the moment I mean 

[Unknown user]

Of course, this whole thing's a front. The government act like OFGEM are god's word - it was the government who gave them the capping power in 2019, exactly so they can go "oh well, it's official, nothing to do with us, now how do we ensure these giant companies still profit?"

Edited September 6, 2022 by Smithee

[Unknown user]

42 minutes ago, Dazo said:

No one has a problem discussing this as this thread clearly shows so I’ve no idea how you got to that conclusion. 
 

You jumped on the word deserve to try and make this about class or wealth to chuck about a few Tory insults in my direction. I was talking about a specific group in the middle who are so often overlooked when it comes to tax cuts or handouts. I did not say or in any way mean they deserve it any more than anyone else. Pick any word you want but this huge group of tax payers in the middle need help and it’s absolutely right they get it. 

 

Need is different from deserving, I've never had a problem with people needing help and the concept of them getting it.

[Captain Sausage]

1 hour ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Trus says she's going to act today or soon.

 

Get it sorted.

 

Can someone in a nutshell tell me why profits can't just be put on hold for now?? Just for the moment I mean 

No real reason, other than I expect it would significantly impair the private capital appetite in the future. 
 

ie if companies know that the U.K. government had a track record of just taking their profits during good times, they would be less likely to invest the huge sums we need over the next 20 years to build a resilient, self sufficient electrical grid and supply. 

[Captain Sausage]

Totally agree with a couple of posters above. 
 

1) the price cap retained at April 22 levels is the right thing to do today

 

2) it is in everyone’s interest for Truss to guide the country through this shit show

 

This party will be in power until 2025. They won’t go to a GE because I’m pretty sure polling will tell them that they’d be annihilated. So we are stuck with them, and I don’t see it being in any of our interests for things to get worse, even if most people can sit back and say ‘told you so’

[ri Alban]

The freeze is a magic trick. £100b that we need to pay back on our bills for twenty years. Get the likes of BP and Shell to behave(cap and windfall taxes) 100b on top of the 200b profit they are gonna take. Time to take it all back into public hands . Thieving *******s.

Edited September 6, 2022 by ri Alban

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

No real reason, other than I expect it would significantly impair the private capital appetite in the future. 
 

ie if companies know that the U.K. government had a track record of just taking their profits during good times, they would be less likely to invest the huge sums we need over the next 20 years to build a resilient, self sufficient electrical grid and supply. 

 

Then take it out of their hands. Take over the energy companies, absorb the losses, invest in infrastructure, and when things are looking up, use the profits to bring prices down.

 

[ri Alban]

Who has the biggest Hoose on JKB. We're all moving in and splitting the bills.