Don't Pay UK

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS.

Why do you reply so aggressively when you haven't done me the courtesy of reading what I wrote? It's there in my first post.

[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.

So definitely not you then Steve?

Are you actually dafter than you already appear to be, or do you just not bother to read other people's posts?

What do you not understand about me joining "EnoughisEnough", or agreeing with the stance taken by Mick Lynch and the TUC?

[scawsby steve]

SS.

Why do you reply so aggressively when you haven't done me the courtesy of reading what I wrote? It's there in my first post.

OK then, I'll just ask a simple question. If the TUC and Mick Lynch have got this so wrong, what's going to be the endgame in all this, because their movement is just gathering more and more momentum. How is all this going to play out for the Labour Party and the next GE?

More importantly, when's Keith going to say something about it?

[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?

Are you actually dafter than you already appear to be, or do you just not bother to read other people's posts?

What do you not understand about me joining "EnoughisEnough", or agreeing with the stance taken by Mick Lynch and the TUC?

I just think on politics and support for the less well off people of the UK you're a bit mouth and no trousers Steve is all, nothing personal like, you just bash stuff out on the keyboard and let others actually do it, tell me what you do about it more than this?

Plus you get aggressive, do you ever read your posts the next day, this is a forum with a bit of banter on the side not letting off steam in the gym

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS.

Why do you reply so aggressively when you haven't done me the courtesy of reading what I wrote? It's there in my first post.

OK then, I'll just ask a simple question. If the TUC and Mick Lynch have got this so wrong, what's going to be the endgame in all this, because their movement is just gathering more and more momentum. How is all this going to play out for the Labour Party and the next GE?

More importantly, when's Keith going to say something about it?

The answer is to put money into people's pockets through the benefit system. Just as I said in my first post.

Starmer has been calling for that for months.

Gordon Brown published a report yesterday calling for that.

It's quick. It's easy. It's affordable. Just needs the political will.

[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.

So definitely not you then Steve?

Are you actually dafter than you already appear to be, or do you just not bother to read other people's posts?

What do you not understand about me joining "EnoughisEnough", or agreeing with the stance taken by Mick Lynch and the TUC?

I just think on politics and support for the less well off people of the UK you're a bit mouth and no trousers Steve is all, nothing personal like, you just bash stuff out on the keyboard and let others actually do it, tell me what you do about it more than this?

Plus you have a lot of front accusing others of getting aggressive, do you actually read your posts the next morning.

Who did I accuse of being aggressive? What do I let others do?

I'm going to stop engaging with you now, because I honestly believe you've got a serious problem understanding the English language.

[SydneyRover]

I rushed that bit out, but by all means stop engaging with me because I ask you tough questions, I ask you what more do you do than just criticise others on here, please tell me you actually do something with all this pent up aggression Steve other than just rant about what you don't like?

[drfchound]

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?

Are you actually dafter than you already appear to be, or do you just not bother to read other people's posts?

What do you not understand about me joining "EnoughisEnough", or agreeing with the stance taken by Mick Lynch and the TUC?

I just think on politics and support for the less well off people of the UK you're a bit mouth and no trousers Steve is all, nothing personal like, you just bash stuff out on the keyboard and let others actually do it, tell me what you do about it more than this?

Plus you have a lot of front accusing others of getting aggressive, do you actually read your posts the next morning.

Who did I accuse of being aggressive? What do I let others do?

I'm going to stop engaging with you now, because I honestly believe you've got a serious problem or two.

I’ve amended your post Steve so that it is a bit more accurate.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

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

Albie claiming a plan is costed doesn't mean it is.  To think you'd purchase all the energy companies for £2bn is ridiculous.  Not only are you buying the shares (which you can't quantify in all cases it's all assumptions to fit the narrative, not withstanding the premium you'd have to pay) but taking on the debt, risks on future purchases (hedged or not), risks on customer default etc etc.

They use EDF as an example, just look at the debt that's causing on France and how much debt and risk the french government is taking on.  (It's going to cost France north of £50bn) for a company losing money.

I largely agree with bst we do have to suck it up a bit, but clearly the calls to tax those like bp further are valid to an extent (with breaks for investment).  The issue is not with your provider, as bst says the market dictated what they charge, nationalising that just passes the risk on to taxpayers.

Back to my point on labour at the start, they cannot commit to big money on this, it's just fiscally risky and inappropriate to do so.  Labour have already committed to running daily spending on a balanced mechanism. They cannot possibly do that and nationalise energy companies.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's not actually correct BFYP.

If firms are nationalised, yes that costs cash money. But it also puts assets on the Govt balance sheet.

Done at the right value, the effect it has on the Govt accounts is absolutely neutral.

Govt IS going to have to subsidise the cost of living though and this is a separate issue. That will be either the wrong way (the French way) or the right way (increasing benefits). In principal the effect of each of those on Govt finances is equivalent. The relative efficacy of the methods is not measured by their cash cost. It is the effect it has on limiting pain at home without just exporting that to pain in the developing world.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You'd do well to find many energy companies with assets greater than liabilities right now that's before you even consider the risks involved. Just look at the huge provision Centrica booked on their balance sheet as one example.  There aren't a huge amount of assets in the energy companies given they are essentially just the provider of energy they purchase (likely with huge risk right now).

[BillyStubbsTears]

Agreed. But that doesn't change the basic principle. If you nationalise a company by paying the correct market price taking into account all its assets and liabilities, the balance sheet of the Govt is unaffected. So you can nationalise companies without having any effect on the Govt balance sheet.

For what it's worth, I do think the energy companies will have to be nationalised if we are going to make the necessary green transition. I don't see market mechanisms doing that.

But that's a totally different issue to whether we need to nationalise them to sort out the immediate cost of living crisis. There are far quicker and more effective ways of managing that over the next few weeks and months. Whether this Govt will take those steps is another question entirely.

[drfchound]

You just need to send them an email and explain what they need to do and everything will be fine.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meanwhile, Truss has doubled down on saying she will sort this out through tax cuts.

How do tax cuts help the very poorest who need most help get through this?

What she's doing is offering most help to the well off who least need the help. I can't figure out whether she is utterly clueless or in fact an out and out class warrior.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And if you're properly going to understand this crisis, who was and wasn't to blame and what can be done about it, this guy is, as ever, right on the money.

From 6 months ago.
https://mobile.twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1489200245066059776

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meanwhile, Truss has doubled down on saying she will sort this out through tax cuts.

How do tax cuts help the very poorest who need most help get through this?

What she's doing is offering most help to the well off who least need the help. I can't figure out whether she is utterly clueless or in fact an out and out class warrior.

Just to put this in perspective. Truss is saying she will cut NIcas soon as she's in No10.

The effect of a 1% cut in NI?

If you're earning £200 a week, it'll save you precisely zero.

If you're earning £300 a week, it will save you 50p a week.

If you're earning £1000 a week, it'll save you £7.60 a week.

If you're earning £2000 a week, it'll save you £17.50 a week.

If you're earning £10,000 a week, it'll save you £100 a week.

How in the name of heaven is that supposed to help the people who are going to be worst hit?

[albie]

Pud,

You are still assuming that a public investment would involve buying shares at current stock value.
This value has been artificially increased as a result of excess profits being channelled into buybacks.

You could just issue new equity to the equivalent of 51% of the current stock in a preferential public account.
100% equity control is not required.

After all, these shares were offered to the public at a discount way below their true value.
This has resulted in sell on to non UK interests, transferring profits off-shore to foreign profit seeking shareholders.

[BillyStubbsTears]

What must it be like to be so irredeemably stupid, and have no comprehension of how stupid you are.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1556972438248103936?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Jesus wept. The sheer thickness of this man.

[tyke1962]

Meanwhile Keith is waiting for the results of one of his focus groups that will tell him what to think .

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Pud,

You are still assuming that a public investment would involve buying shares at current stock value.
This value has been artificially increased as a result of excess profits being channelled into buybacks.

You could just issue new equity to the equivalent of 51% of the current stock in a preferential public account.
100% equity control is not required.

After all, these shares were offered to the public at a discount way below their true value.
This has resulted in sell on to non UK interests, transferring profits off-shore to foreign profit seeking shareholders.

Has that ever happened in the western world?  Can it even happen in UK law? Do the shareholders of these companies deserve to lose out?  And then given the companies don't make huge profits do we just take that hit through the public funds?

[albie]

Pud,

Please read my post properly.
With a 51% public holding, private shareholders with a minority 49% can retain their shares if they wish...they are not "losing out".

That is only one means, others can be put forward.
Are you saying that the current set up is working?....for the big 6 maybe, but not for consumers!

Takeovers happen all the time in the financial hubs, why not one for the public good instead of private gain?

The issue is one of principle....what does a modern energy system look like, and how does the UK achieve it at lowest cost.
Give us your take please?

The present system is clearly broken, and cannot be reformed to meet the needs of the fuel poor and to decarbonise without conflict, can it?.

[roversdude]

I’d have thought making it viable for people to work rather than rely on benefits would be preferable

[BillyStubbsTears]

I’d have thought making it viable for people to work rather than rely on benefits would be preferable

The overwhelming majority of working age people in the country do work.

The problem is, very few people can budget for a sudden increase of £3000 per year in the cost of a basic necessity.

That would be very hard in any society. In one like we've had for the last 4 decades where so many people are only just above the breadline, it invites disaster.

The benefits I'm talking about are not (just) for those out of work. There will have to be massive Govt payments to people a long way up the earnings ladder if we are going to get through this.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meanwhile Keith is waiting for the results of one of his focus groups that will tell him what to think .

This gets to the nub of the problem for Labour.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1557272019112284160

The solution to the cost of living crisis is going to have consequences.

You have two possibilities.

1) Govt borrows a LOT of money to fund benefits.

2) Govt increases taxes on the wealthier half of society to subsidise the poorer half.

Neither of those are politically cost free. They will upset some major proportion of the electorate.

And Labour knows what that can mean, because of the GFC.

In 2008, Brown's Govt did EXACTLY the right thing in borrowing heavily to keep the economy going. We avoided a Great Depression II because of that.

And what was the electoral result? Great celebrations from a grateful electorate? Like f**k. Labour were hammered over the borrowing issue. The Tories kept schtum during the crisis, vanished off the stage, let Labour deal with it, then screamed that they'd spent too much.

And people swallowed it. You still get people today insisting that Labour were profligate and that CAUSED the disaster.

That's politics. The problem is not the politicians. It's the understanding of the electorate. It sounds brutal, but there is literally nothing to be gained for Labour by proposing solutions on the scale that is required here. No solution is going to be cost free. And given that we have an electorate programmed (wrongly) to believe that the last Labour Govt spent money like a drunken sailor, or was a high-tax Govt on the aspirational, Labour proposing those sorts of solutions gives the Tories a free hit.

It's grim, it's not idealistic, it's not what I want politics to be about, but Labour is best served keeping its head down and letting the Govt deal with this shit.

Like I keep saying, Oppositions never ever win elections. Govts lose them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And this is how bad it could get.

https://mobile.twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1557019715951804416

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Pud,

Please read my post properly.
With a 51% public holding, private shareholders with a minority 49% can retain their shares if they wish...they are not "losing out".

That is only one means, others can be put forward.
Are you saying that the current set up is working?....for the big 6 maybe, but not for consumers!

Takeovers happen all the time in the financial hubs, why not one for the public good instead of private gain?

The issue is one of principle....what does a modern energy system look like, and how does the UK achieve it at lowest cost.
Give us your take please?

The present system is clearly broken, and cannot be reformed to meet the needs of the fuel poor and to decarbonise without conflict, can it?.

No I totally understood it. You essentially think it's fair to devalue shareholdings by 50% and legal to only offer new shares to the government. Is it?

[albie]

Pud,

Yes Pud, it happens every day in the City.
The shares would be revalued to the worth of the business under the new architecture, so far so normal.

What is interesting is that you presumably do not worry about hostile takeovers aimed at leveraging profits, but resist a public interest intervention to prevent profit taking away from social provision.

As I said, it is a matter of principle.
Once again, how do you suggest resolving the problem we face?

[albie]

Energy bills comparison;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZvvJCDXwAANf0D?format=jpg&name=900x900

Why is that?
What is specific to the UK that makes this so hard?

[i_ateallthepies]

Energy bills comparison;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZvvJCDXwAANf0D?format=jpg&name=900x900

Why is that?
What is specific to the UK that makes this so hard?

Because we 'took back control'.  The Tory bas**rds are freed up to f**k over which ever way they like.

[BigH]

Energy bills comparison;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZvvJCDXwAANf0D?format=jpg&name=900x900

Why is that?
What is specific to the UK that makes this so hard?

An incredibly weak regulator and a government caught like a rabbit in the headlights.