Don't Pay UK

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn,

8m people in the UK are predicted to be in fuel poverty with the coming increase in energy costs.

This is at the same time as the BoE says the UK will be in recession from Q4 this year through the whole of 2023, with inflation rising to 13%.

Many of those people will not be able to pay, so will choose food (itself rising in price) over heat.

So the issue is whether the private profiteers will go to court to prosecute non-payers.
The scale of non payment will make that very difficult, and the courts will be unable to cope.

The point of the "Don't Pay" campaign is to give a voice to those unable to pay, and put political pressure on this wretched government to prevent Ofgem raising the price cap.

These increases fall much more heavily on those with limited income, because they have less disposable income to spend.
The IMF produced this graphic, to show the difference between countries. The UK needs to move the two points closer together, and towards the left axis.....somewhere near the position in France.

I know all this, but the 'Don't Pay' isn't telling people what I've been saying.

Colour me cynical, but a completely anonymous organisation with zero financial transparency begging for donations from those it supposedly champions smacks of one of Trump's grifting scams.

[albie]

I don't know who is running the campaign, Glyn....but I do understand why they might want to preserve their privacy on this.

My understanding is that they were looking for pledges to discontinue paying by direct debit, to be actioned in October.

There would be no need for any of this if the Tories or Labour were looking to protect the vulnerable from predatory energy providers, but they are not looking to do more than a partial offset.

If you have any proof that this is a scam, then please share it with us.
I have not seen any evidence of this.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I don't know who is running the campaign, Glyn....but I do understand why they might want to preserve their privacy on this.

My understanding is that they were looking for pledges to discontinue paying by direct debit, to be actioned in October.

There would be no need for any of this if the Tories or Labour were looking to protect the vulnerable from predatory energy providers, but they are not looking to do more than a partial offset.

If you have any proof that this is a scam, then please share it with us.
I have not seen any evidence of this.

They are asking for donations. You have looked at their website asking for those donations, have you not? There is absolutely no way of knowing where your money is going, if it will be spent in they way they claim it will, or how much they have collected in total. It is completely opaque. I don't need to prove it's a scam, they need to prove it isn't as it has all the hallmarks of a classic one.

If I donate, how do I know my money is being used as they say it is. You talk about not having any evidence, what do you say to not having any evidence of that?

[selby]

  If it is organised, and they don't pay, they will have the book thrown at them and some will have their whole lives ruined, organisations like this will not be tolerated by the establishment whose existence could be threatened, and total anarchy would result if they were allowed to be successful. 

[tyke1962]

The way I see it the best way for the many people who are simply not going to have enough money to pay their energy bills is to only pay what you can afford .

I'd also suggest that you need to keep your usage at your historical levels if you can .

Keep all your receipts , food shopping , petrol or any other purchases you need to make .

As long as you can account for every pound coming in and prove that your only expenses are justifiable I'd suggest there's absolutely nothing anyone can do .

[albie]

I agree it is opaque at the moment, Glyn....but that does not mean it is a scam.
People should not donate if you are worried about how that money will be spent.

I would expect an explanation of monies received and spent in due course, as with any organisation collecting funds.
Often, with a new set up, this information comes after a sum is reached.

A relevant concern is whether they have "legal personality", status as an organisation which may be subject to challenge.

You can still make the pledge to cancel direct debit in October.
This is the real objective, because it takes back the ability to spend on other things and defer the energy costs.

Allowing the energy companies to crank up bills without constraint is not in the interests of low income consumers, if it means that they have less flexibility in managing their money.

The "Don't Pay" campaign is one tactic to apply pressure to the political debate, others will emerge.

How do you move the UK from the very bad position in the IMF graphic to be comparable with other countries like France and Sweden?......windfall taxes will not do that!

What action do you think those who cannot pay should take?

[Bristol Red Rover]

  If it is organised, and they don't pay, they will have the book thrown at them and some will have their whole lives ruined, organisations like this will not be tolerated by the establishment whose existence could be threatened, and total anarchy would result if they were allowed to be successful. 

Whilst I somewhat agree, the picture you paint is one of only extremes and I don't think that is the case in the real world - ie not the world in the media nor in the minds/propaganda of the elite/establishment.

First, anarchy has tied to it so many emotive negatives including violence. As such it is thrown out as a rhetorical threat to not toeing the line of the establishment. Almost all will buy that.

In the real world, the not paying is just one focused act, not a general meltdown of all organisation in society. If it happens, it will punch a hole in the hold of the establisment. One hole, that is all. Where I agree with you is that the establishment won't allow this and will try to come down with full force on anyone involved, most significantly on the ones seen as "leading" it.

So, this IS war. And this is where the Labour Party for one should be very active, offering an alternative, a very radical alternative to the coming problem. AND meanwhile they should be acknowledging the motives and reasoning of the "don't pay". Some things are deeply important if not fully dealt with, and this is one. But we know the Labour Party is part of the establishment, so won't do this.

[scawsby steve]

  If it is organised, and they don't pay, they will have the book thrown at them and some will have their whole lives ruined, organisations like this will not be tolerated by the establishment whose existence could be threatened, and total anarchy would result if they were allowed to be successful. 

Whilst I somewhat agree, the picture you paint is one of only extremes and I don't think that is the case in the real world - ie not the world in the media nor in the minds/propaganda of the elite/establishment.

First, anarchy has tied to it so many emotive negatives including violence. As such it is thrown out as a rhetorical threat to not toeing the line of the establishment. Almost all will buy that.

In the real world, the not paying is just one focused act, not a general meltdown of all organisation in society. If it happens, it will punch a hole in the hold of the establisment. One hole, that is all. Where I agree with you is that the establishment won't allow this and will try to come down with full force on anyone involved, most significantly on the ones seen as "leading" it.

So, this IS war. And this is where the Labour Party for one should be very active, offering an alternative, a very radical alternative to the coming problem. AND meanwhile they should be acknowledging the motives and reasoning of the "don't pay". Some things are deeply important if not fully dealt with, and this is one. But we know the Labour Party is part of the establishment, so won't do this.

Regarding that last paragraph, BRR, the first thing that needs doing is for the Labour Party to get rid of that useless upper middle class prat that's supposed to be it's leader.

[tyke1962]

  If it is organised, and they don't pay, they will have the book thrown at them and some will have their whole lives ruined, organisations like this will not be tolerated by the establishment whose existence could be threatened, and total anarchy would result if they were allowed to be successful. 

Whilst I somewhat agree, the picture you paint is one of only extremes and I don't think that is the case in the real world - ie not the world in the media nor in the minds/propaganda of the elite/establishment.

First, anarchy has tied to it so many emotive negatives including violence. As such it is thrown out as a rhetorical threat to not toeing the line of the establishment. Almost all will buy that.

In the real world, the not paying is just one focused act, not a general meltdown of all organisation in society. If it happens, it will punch a hole in the hold of the establisment. One hole, that is all. Where I agree with you is that the establishment won't allow this and will try to come down with full force on anyone involved, most significantly on the ones seen as "leading" it.

So, this IS war. And this is where the Labour Party for one should be very active, offering an alternative, a very radical alternative to the coming problem. AND meanwhile they should be acknowledging the motives and reasoning of the "don't pay". Some things are deeply important if not fully dealt with, and this is one. But we know the Labour Party is part of the establishment, so won't do this.

Regarding that last paragraph, BRR, the first thing that needs doing is for the Labour Party to get rid of that useless upper middle class prat that's supposed to be it's leader.

The best thing working class people can do Steve is to organise themselves through collectivism and fight their corner .

Whether that's is through joining trade unions or movements such as Dont Pay UK .

It's highly likely that even if Keith does somehow end up in number 10 the majority of today's issues won't simply be Laboured away .

Your just as likely to have just as many issues under a Labour government as you are a Tory one .

[BillyStubbsTears]

I thought the rise in bills in June was meant to be 50%?

My bill has just gone up from £128.36 to £260.99. That's a rise of over 100%.

How much longer are we, the working class, going to put up with this?

For as long as there is no credible alternative to the government we have. We need a nationalist government with the needs of the workers at heart.

Like...?

Like a...National Socialist government?

[scawsby steve]

Last night on Sky News, almost all of the pundits and journalists were predicting that millions of people throughout the UK will be cancelling their direct debits, and opting to go back to paying quarterly bills, and offering what they can afford.

I doubt if the energy companies would be able to do much about that situation.

[Filo]

I’m £245 in credit Shell energy sent me an email saying they had put my DD up to £200 from £150, I told them they couldn’t do that without my permission and they had not factored in the £400 that every household gets into their calculations, I said put it back to £150 and I’ll sort any shortfall if or when they arise

[rich1471]

Last night on Sky News, almost all of the pundits and journalists were predicting that millions of people throughout the UK will be cancelling their direct debits, and opting to go back to paying quarterly bills, and offering what they can afford.

I doubt if the energy companies would be able to do much about that situation.

energy company's will be fxxked come November and it will be done to pure greed and nothing else ,look at the bonuses the bosses are been paid it is ludicrous

[wilts rover]

  If it is organised, and they don't pay, they will have the book thrown at them and some will have their whole lives ruined, organisations like this will not be tolerated by the establishment whose existence could be threatened, and total anarchy would result if they were allowed to be successful. 

Whilst I somewhat agree, the picture you paint is one of only extremes and I don't think that is the case in the real world - ie not the world in the media nor in the minds/propaganda of the elite/establishment.

First, anarchy has tied to it so many emotive negatives including violence. As such it is thrown out as a rhetorical threat to not toeing the line of the establishment. Almost all will buy that.

In the real world, the not paying is just one focused act, not a general meltdown of all organisation in society. If it happens, it will punch a hole in the hold of the establisment. One hole, that is all. Where I agree with you is that the establishment won't allow this and will try to come down with full force on anyone involved, most significantly on the ones seen as "leading" it.

So, this IS war. And this is where the Labour Party for one should be very active, offering an alternative, a very radical alternative to the coming problem. AND meanwhile they should be acknowledging the motives and reasoning of the "don't pay". Some things are deeply important if not fully dealt with, and this is one. But we know the Labour Party is part of the establishment, so won't do this.

That's exactly what happened with the Poll Tax. A mass non-payment movement allied with angry demonstrations - all organised outside exisiting political structures.

I wouldn't go looking for the Labour Party or any other mainstream political party to lead any sort of public dissent. When was the last time they organised people to do anything (other than campaign for themselves) Word War II?

[albie]

Interesting discussion on public ownership of energy on the Owen Jones Show on YT;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUSDYXcSe1k

Intro for the first 4and a half minutes.

[albie]

Looks like the unions are fed up with wetwipe Sir Keith, and started their own campaign;
https://twitter.com/eiecampaign/status/1556551243765514240

Missing in action, the Labour team!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Looks like the unions are fed up with wetwipe Sir Keith, and started their own campaign;
https://twitter.com/eiecampaign/status/1556551243765514240

Missing in action, the Labour team!

How can labour support it, if they win the next election they have to implement it and they know that's tough?

[albie]

Pud,

Not sure what you think is tough.
The TUC produced a costed plan for public ownership of key utilities which was cheaper than not implementing it.
https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/tuc-publishes-plan-cut-bills-through-public-ownership-energy-retail

What about the idea of using the BULB customers as the base for a public sector energy provider, operating to a remit to lower consumer costs?

The big greed corps would need to price down to compete, or lose customers hand over fist.
Just one suggestion!

All the goals in the "Enough is Enough" programme are what Labour should be supporting anyway, but they just won't  show any policies to be discussed.
https://inews.co.uk/news/new-union-and-mp-fronted-campaign-enough-is-enough-plans-to-hold-rallies-to-fight-cost-of-living-crisis-1784438

[scawsby steve]

Looks like the unions are fed up with wetwipe Sir Keith, and started their own campaign;
https://twitter.com/eiecampaign/status/1556551243765514240

Missing in action, the Labour team!

Done. I'm in, Albie.

[BillyStubbsTears]

On energy bills.

The IMF has said today (quite correctly)  that Govt subsidies to the price of energy is very much the wrong way to address this crisis.

You on the Left, listen to the whole argument before you automatically switch off.

The argument goes like this. The price of energy is now what it is. Nobody is fiddling it other than possibly small amounts at the margins. It is astronomically high at the moment because there is a global excess of demand over supply.

Unless you run a global command economy, where some global Govt dictates who can have what, the consequence of excess demand over supply is that prices go up.

That's what has happened.

What we need to do is to prioritise addressing that excess demand, and a major issue there is that we all need to use less energy. Turn the thermostat down a bit. Turn lights off. Don't use the washer for a half load. Etc. Etc.

Using Govt money to subsidise prices reduces the stick that should be making us use less energy.

And here's the moral issue. If we do that, WE will be OK. We rich countries could afford to subsidise prices that our own people pay. But that won't reduce the cost of energy on global markets. And the poorest countries will be the ones f**ked over if global demand continues to outstrip supply. Because their Govts cannot subsidise their domestic prices.

As the IMF says, the correct way for rich countries to deal with this crisis is 100% not to subsidise energy prices (which is what the TUC campaign wants). If you call for that, don't claim to be a socialist who cares about the poor of the developing world.

The correct way is for rich countries to allow the price to be what the global market determines it to be. Use that as a stick to encourage people to use less. And give big benefit subsidies to help people pay the bills. Predominantly targeted at the very poorest. The richer people will just have to tighten their belts.

Funny times we live in. The IMF being more internationally socialist than the TUC.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is the key piece from the IMF research paper by the way. A bit heavy going but it is very, very important.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1556528548973879296

[scawsby steve]

On energy bills.

The IMF has said today (quite correctly)  that Govt subsidies to the price of energy is very much the wrong way to address this crisis.

You on the Left, listen to the whole argument before you automatically switch off.

The argument goes like this. The price of energy is now what it is. Nobody is fiddling it other than possibly small amounts at the margins. It is astronomically high at the moment because there is a global excess of demand over supply.

Unless you run a global command economy, where some global Govt dictates who can have what, the consequence of excess demand over supply is that prices go up.

That's what has happened.

What we need to do is to prioritise addressing that excess demand, and a major issue there is that we all need to use less energy. Turn the thermostat down a bit. Turn lights off. Don't use the washer for a half load. Etc. Etc.

Using Govt money to subsidise prices reduces the stick that should be making us use less energy.

And here's the moral issue. If we do that, WE will be OK. We rich countries could afford to subsidise prices that our own people pay. But that won't reduce the cost of energy on global markets. And the poorest countries will be the ones f**ked over if global demand continues to outstrip supply. Because their Govts cannot subsidise their domestic prices.

As the IMF says, the correct way for rich countries to deal with this crisis is 100% not to subsidise energy prices (which is what the TUC campaign wants). If you call for that, don't claim to be a socialist who cares about the poor of the developing world.

The correct way is for rich countries to allow the price to be what the global market determines it to be. Use that as a stick to encourage people to use less. And give big benefit subsidies to help people pay the bills. Predominantly targeted at the very poorest. The richer people will just have to tighten their belts.

Funny times we live in. The IMF being more internationally socialist than the TUC.

Tell all that to the millions of people in THIS country who will be sat with quilts round them next Winter, and very little food in their bellies.

Sunak, Truss, and Keith would love that post you've just made.

[drfchound]

I can imagine what some people would be saying in February when the poorest in the UK are literally freezing to death in their homes.

[BillyStubbsTears]

On energy bills.

The IMF has said today (quite correctly)  that Govt subsidies to the price of energy is very much the wrong way to address this crisis.

You on the Left, listen to the whole argument before you automatically switch off.

The argument goes like this. The price of energy is now what it is. Nobody is fiddling it other than possibly small amounts at the margins. It is astronomically high at the moment because there is a global excess of demand over supply.

Unless you run a global command economy, where some global Govt dictates who can have what, the consequence of excess demand over supply is that prices go up.

That's what has happened.

What we need to do is to prioritise addressing that excess demand, and a major issue there is that we all need to use less energy. Turn the thermostat down a bit. Turn lights off. Don't use the washer for a half load. Etc. Etc.

Using Govt money to subsidise prices reduces the stick that should be making us use less energy.

And here's the moral issue. If we do that, WE will be OK. We rich countries could afford to subsidise prices that our own people pay. But that won't reduce the cost of energy on global markets. And the poorest countries will be the ones f**ked over if global demand continues to outstrip supply. Because their Govts cannot subsidise their domestic prices.

As the IMF says, the correct way for rich countries to deal with this crisis is 100% not to subsidise energy prices (which is what the TUC campaign wants). If you call for that, don't claim to be a socialist who cares about the poor of the developing world.

The correct way is for rich countries to allow the price to be what the global market determines it to be. Use that as a stick to encourage people to use less. And give big benefit subsidies to help people pay the bills. Predominantly targeted at the very poorest. The richer people will just have to tighten their belts.

Funny times we live in. The IMF being more internationally socialist than the TUC.

Tell all that to the millions of people in THIS country who will be sat with quilts round them next Winter, and very little food in their bellies.

Sunak, Truss, and Keith would love that post you've just made.

Why do you do this? Have you actually read what I said?

[scawsby steve]

On energy bills.

The IMF has said today (quite correctly)  that Govt subsidies to the price of energy is very much the wrong way to address this crisis.

You on the Left, listen to the whole argument before you automatically switch off.

The argument goes like this. The price of energy is now what it is. Nobody is fiddling it other than possibly small amounts at the margins. It is astronomically high at the moment because there is a global excess of demand over supply.

Unless you run a global command economy, where some global Govt dictates who can have what, the consequence of excess demand over supply is that prices go up.

That's what has happened.

What we need to do is to prioritise addressing that excess demand, and a major issue there is that we all need to use less energy. Turn the thermostat down a bit. Turn lights off. Don't use the washer for a half load. Etc. Etc.

Using Govt money to subsidise prices reduces the stick that should be making us use less energy.

And here's the moral issue. If we do that, WE will be OK. We rich countries could afford to subsidise prices that our own people pay. But that won't reduce the cost of energy on global markets. And the poorest countries will be the ones f**ked over if global demand continues to outstrip supply. Because their Govts cannot subsidise their domestic prices.

As the IMF says, the correct way for rich countries to deal with this crisis is 100% not to subsidise energy prices (which is what the TUC campaign wants). If you call for that, don't claim to be a socialist who cares about the poor of the developing world.

The correct way is for rich countries to allow the price to be what the global market determines it to be. Use that as a stick to encourage people to use less. And give big benefit subsidies to help people pay the bills. Predominantly targeted at the very poorest. The richer people will just have to tighten their belts.

Funny times we live in. The IMF being more internationally socialist than the TUC.

Tell all that to the millions of people in THIS country who will be sat with quilts round them next Winter, and very little food in their bellies.

Sunak, Truss, and Keith would love that post you've just made.

Why do you do this? Have you actually read what I said?

Yes, I've read what you said, so I'll ask you a basic question, are the TUC and Mick Lynch wrong on all this?

This country's getting very close to civil disobedience. When it happens, you, Keith, and others need to decide which side you're on, because none of it's going to go away.

[SydneyRover]

Maybe the TUC but most likely not you Steve nor Tyke aye?

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS.

Yes they are wrong in saying the answer is to keep fuel prices low.

And you are bang out of order suggesting that I'm advocating people being put into abject poverty. Why do you do that?

[scawsby steve]

Maybe the TUC but most likely not you Steve nor Tyke aye?

You missed Albie out there, another one who cares about working class people and the poor.

[SydneyRover]

Maybe the TUC but most likely not you Steve nor Tyke aye?

You missed Albie out there, another one who cares about working class people and the poor.

So definitely not you then Steve?

[scawsby steve]

SS.

Yes they are wrong in saying the answer is to keep fuel prices low.

And you are bang out of order suggesting that I'm advocating people being put into abject poverty. Why do you do that?

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I'm just curious to know what you'd suggest to people who are freezing and almost starving to death, seeing as your answer is for people just to switch a few things off.

How can they switch off what they haven't got? I honestly don't think you've grasped what's coming next Winter.