The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, pSinatra said:

I'm not sure it's because of my bias, but it seems to me she's getting destroyed here

She's dreadful isn't she.

[urban.spaceman]

What the **** does "do the right thing" even mean? Cameron used to say this all the time.

[Foxdiamond]

So Truss will protect the energy companies using borrowing that we and our children will have to pay for years. Also tax cuts that will benefit the better off. No surprises there.

[Voll Blau]

Fvck me, it was nice to hear a Prime Minister actually vaguely answering some of the questions asked of them.

[Towelie]

Won't reversing the NI rise actually shaft the lower earners now?

 

Sure the rise was bad initially but I thought Sunak change the allowances back in July so despite the rise, most people under £35k-ish PA were then better off??

 

Everything changes so often and quickly now it's hard to keep up.

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, pSinatra said:

I'm not sure it's because of my bias, but it seems to me she's getting destroyed here

I think it is bias. I thought she was disappointingly solid, and left both Starmer and Blackford with slapped faces.

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I think it is bias. I thought she was disappointingly solid, and left both Starmer and Blackford with slapped faces.

I only read the Guardian write-up and it seemed fairly unspectactular. Was Starmer going easy on her while figuring out what to do?

[Zear0]

Just now, kenny said:

I only read the Guardian write-up and it seemed fairly unspectactular. Was Starmer going easy on her while figuring out what to do?

Was a bit dry, but I think the entire focus from Kier was basically laying the groundwork for the "who pays?" question rgearding the price cap.  They know Rishi's "loan that wasn't a loan" went down like a lead ballon so expect the discussion tomorrow on the actual policy to be a bit more interesting.

[Dunge]

Just now, kenny said:

I only read the Guardian write-up and it seemed fairly unspectactular. Was Starmer going easy on her while figuring out what to do?

The exchange turned into an ideological debate with no real conclusion rather than a devastating takedown, then at the end of his last question he left her a line that she turned around on him with a wit quicker than I thought she possessed. Neither Starmer nor Blackford thought she would or could deliver a blow on the attack.

[kenny]

Just now, Dunge said:

The exchange turned into an ideological debate with no real conclusion rather than a devastating takedown, then at the end of his last question he left her a line that she turned around on him with a wit quicker than I thought she possessed. Neither Starmer nor Blackford thought she would or could deliver a blow on the attack.

She might surprise everyone and be more useful than expected.

 

Quote

Was a bit dry, but I think the entire focus from Kier was basically laying the groundwork for the "who pays?" question rgearding the price cap.  They know Rishi's "loan that wasn't a loan" went down like a lead ballon so expect the discussion tomorrow on the actual policy to be a bit more interesting.

They haven't seen enough policies to be able to pick them apart I suppose. The paying question is an easy line as there isn't a way to pay for any of it. Even a windfall tax doesn't cover what's required.

 

I'm surprised he didn't go for the more obvious personal stuff like he did with BJ

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

The paying for it is the crucial point that Starmer is leaving as a slow burner that will be the main difference. 

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, kenny said:

She might surprise everyone and be more useful than expected.

 

They haven't seen enough policies to be able to pick them apart I suppose. The paying question is an easy line as there isn't a way to pay for any of it. Even a windfall tax doesn't cover what's required.

 

I'm surprised he didn't go for the more obvious personal stuff like he did with BJ

 

 

I would have liked him to ask her why she’s employing anti-abortionists and homophobes, but maybe that would fall foul of parliamentary language.

 

Plus it would probably be difficult to form a Tory cabinet without one at the minute.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I would have liked him to ask her why she’s employing anti-abortionists and homophobes, but maybe that would fall foul of parliamentary language.

 

Plus it would probably be difficult to form a Tory cabinet without one at the minute.

And an energy secretary so far in the pocket of carbon emission energy companies that you'd need the James Webb Space Telescope to see him.

[Foxdiamond]

At least with Truss we will get away from the ridiculous Johnson farce nearly every time he made an appearance. This will hopefully concentrate minds on what the government is doing or not.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Maybe the ‘who pays’ argument will work with the public because the austerity message worked with the public.

 

But idk why the left has decided to forget that government borrowing is a perfectly legitimate way to pay for an event like this.
 

Sure, a windfall tax would be the right thing to do and wouldn’t be unpopular in and of itself but it gets nowhere near actually paying for it and so going ‘yeah but’ on a needed policy looks a bit dumb.

 

The argument of equity stakes makes a bit more sense (although probably  it feasible with where the money is actually going) but Starmer drivelled on about cost there. Presumably lawyers don’t understand balance sheets.
 

I’m probably wrong but I’m not sure ‘fiscal responsibility’ is quite the boon it was between 2010 and 2016.

[st albans fox]

she is going to freeze bills as current levels and allow the energy companies to take govt loans to cover the shortfall on what they’re paying 

 

the energy companies will have to pay these loans back so our bills will stay high when wholesale energy costs drop back below current levels 

 

so we will eventually pay these higher costs - it will just be spread out over a decade 

 

other countries have decided to stick that bill onto their national debt 

 

I do hope that businesses will be encouraged to save energy - maybe they have to pay any additional amounts over and above last years usage (at wholesale levels) unless they can prove that their usage increase is justifiable. 

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[CosbehFox]

 

When folks waffle on about MSM, here’s an example of how much briefing goes on 

[Fazzer 7]

Starmer still banging on about windfall tax. Does he not realise it wouldn't raise anywhere near the amount needed, and would simply disincentivize further investment and exploration just when it's needed most. Not to mention the companies would find ways of avoiding it, and in any case the profits are taxed.

[Fazzer 7]

Conservatives clawing their way back in latest polling. 

[Zear0]

Not convinced a windfall tax would be a deterrent in the slightest to North Sea oil and gas investment and it's depressing to see that misconception being trotted out. 

 

This isn't some financial, legal or corporate organisation that operates here for tax or judicial perks. They're here for one reason, the effing resource. Unlike Amazon, Googlr etc. they won't "go elsewhere" as they can't. The current energy prices are more of an incentive than anything a government could do to get people to invest in this sector. 

 

Agree they already pay tax on profits, but the idea that excessive profits, caused by a war, at the expense of the people of the country, shouldn't be subjected to an exceptional windfall tax is pretty disgraceful. It is not anti-business and is something supported by a majority of both party voters. It won't detract from investment in the North Sea and will cost them votes. Its stupid all around.

[when_you're_smiling]

39 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

 

When folks waffle on about MSM, here’s an example of how much briefing goes on 

This is so depressing. Understand it from the openly biased like The Sun, but Sky journalists?!?

[Foxdiamond]

54 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Conservatives clawing their way back in latest polling. 

With such s fickle public good job they are not allowed to vote on capital punishment.

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

she is going to freeze bills as current levels and allow the energy companies to take govt loans to cover the shortfall on what they’re paying 

 

the energy companies will have to pay these loans back so our bills will stay high when wholesale energy costs drop back below current levels 

 

so we will eventually pay these higher costs - it will just be spread out over a decade 

 

other countries have decided to stick that bill onto their national debt 

 

I do hope that businesses will be encouraged to save energy - maybe they have to pay any additional amounts over and above last years usage (at wholesale levels) unless they can prove that their usage increase is justifiable. 

This is what was initially briefed but then it changed to actually they’d rejected that idea and we’re just going to borrow it from stick it on national debt. Which chimes with what the economists she’s chosen to surround herself with have said. We see tomorrow what will happen exactly.

 

 

 

There isn’t really an economic reason at this stage to talk about ‘who pays’ and add Milliband saw what happens when Labour put themselves in that boat.

 

The windfall tax is a necessary redistributive step but it would be a better argument portrayed as a tax to invest in the future green energy security of the country because we can’t trust o&g companies to do that 

 

 i) it removes the investment argument, just the government takes on the investment and doesn’t use for day to day funding 

iI) it becomes a tool for economic growth and the investment goes to a future-friendly sector 

iii) an extension of that is that you can tax your way to economic growth if you tax away from the unproductive or undesirable and spend it in the productive or desirable

iv) only governments can do energy security - national security arguments seldom lose 

[Fazzer 7]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Not convinced a windfall tax would be a deterrent in the slightest to North Sea oil and gas investment and it's depressing to see that misconception being trotted out. 

 

This isn't some financial, legal or corporate organisation that operates here for tax or judicial perks. They're here for one reason, the effing resource. Unlike Amazon, Googlr etc. they won't "go elsewhere" as they can't. The current energy prices are more of an incentive than anything a government could do to get people to invest in this sector. 

 

Agree they already pay tax on profits, but the idea that excessive profits, caused by a war, at the expense of the people of the country, shouldn't be subjected to an exceptional windfall tax is pretty disgraceful. It is not anti-business and is something supported by a majority of both party voters. It won't detract from investment in the North Sea and will cost them votes. Its stupid all around.

I was listening to IDS on politics live today. He was saying they’ve already been hit with around 15 billion of WF tax. The reality though is that the treasury is unlikely to receive more than a third of that amount due to loopholes. Well at least I think that was the jist of it.