Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:50 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:40 pm What does renationalisation solve? Where is anybody getting cheaper gas and oil from?

Exactly like with water the problem we have in this country is a lack of rainfall whether the water is nationalised, privitised or decimalised you'd still have to deal with a lack of rainfall.

The water companies seem more questionable to me. The (retail) energy companies aren't making big margins.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:40 pm What does renationalisation solve? Where is anybody getting cheaper gas and oil from?

My partner produces reports on the extractive industries worldwide, for oil companies. She knows a bit about this stuff.

Russia is a red herring. We buy aviation fuel from them, nothing else. This is profiteering based on nothing stopping them, and a clueless British public. Supply chain issues are more to do with shortages of truckers and Brexit than the war. Most of our oil comes from the Gulf. The Suez canal is not currently blocked.

Only when you understand the stratospheric profits of nearly £50bn shared by the five biggest oil companies can you get a full measure of how penurious they are.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:20 pm Only when you understand the stratospheric profits of nearly £50bn shared by the five biggest oil companies can you get a full measure of how penurious they are.

The producers, sure. Not the retail companies who people say should be nationalised. Lots of them were wiped out before by the wholesale price rises.

I'm sure we can do more with the producers that are within our range though.

That's the danger. The front end companies are like insurance firms. The people actually ponying up the money are way removed.

So, nationisation will likely end up with an extranational oligarchy/cartel. And all we can do is appeal to their better natures. Or go back in time and future proof this crap.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:41 pm That's the danger. The front end companies are like insurance firms. The people actually ponying up the money are way removed.

So, nationisation will likely end up with an extranational oligarchy/cartel. And all we can do is appeal to their better natures. Or go back in time and future proof this crap.

That's my worry. I don't get Gordo's nationalisation idea. Is that simpler than giving Ofgem more power, replacing its leadership, or whatever?

(The whole debate's not helped much by people who say "reform Ofgem" or whatever seeming uncommitted about it. Though to his credit, Ed Milliband's seemed more committed, over a period of years, and he'd be the relevant shadow).

When external costs inflate, governments can flatten over time their impact to the point of being virtually invisible. They didn't pay the Napoleonic wars on quarterly invoices. Neither did they stump up for global shareholders and hedgies.

Personally I'm sceptical about this

Several phrases can be true at the same time. F'rinstance;


A fiver a month is a bitter blow when your finances are horrifically tight.

A fiver a month is no panacea when your finances are horrifically tight.

So here it comes.

Keir Starmer demands ban on raising energy prices
Exclusive: Labour calls for the price cap to remain at £1,971 as charities warn Tory leadership candidates of catastrophic impact on the cost of living

I can only assume that taxpayer money goes into retail energy companies to keep the cap at this level. That sounds like an unnecessary freebie to some very rich households, who can afford to pay at least some of their extra costs themselves.

Politically it's what a lot of people want from Labour, though: the cap rise is the enemy, this skewers the enemy.

Well, short of nationalisation etc.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 11:09 am Politically it's what a lot of people want from Labour, though: the cap rise is the enemy, this skewers the enemy.

Well, short of nationalisation etc.

The sad thing is, I don’t think there’s any danger of it being nicked because neither Sunak or Truss seem remotely concerned about anyone’s wellbeing. In their desperate rush to the right I’m expecting them to just come out and say people who can’t pay should lose their home any day now.

I think it turns teh culture war strategy on its head rather cleverly.


Culture war:
Announce something inhumane.
Opponents criticise,
"Snowflakes, Wokeists, Traitors".

Fuel:
Announce something you can't do because you're in opposition.
Leadership candidates are 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Shit hits fan and candidates make a partial U-turn.
"See we were ahead of the game".

I think Starmer is right to have this as broad as possible, targeting it will miss a lot of people and these costs just aren’t affordable.

I’m on nothing a month at the end of it after my last rent, this is hitting harder than people expect.

I think it needs to be targeted more. It's a heck of a lot of money, with all sorts of issues like business and government department spending unaddressed. Though I suppose the logic is that swing voters don't mind debt provided it's being spent on them.

There is a reason why we are getting articles in the comfortable centre right news papers about fasting, this stuff is cutting through. Yes some can afford it but the percentage of the population that can’t you stop the price cap rising it helps everyone. Mr or Mrs portfolio who owns 10 holiday rents for instance is going rake that in on top of being able to rent at a sky high price in the winter.

I’ve got a friend, two decent jobs, one child, her anxiety is off the charts, mines a double edge sword, I’m locked in on a higher rent but it’s probably not going cover any energy hike, I know next year or if he pulls the contract sooner I’m going be in shit creek unless that cap becomes a cap.

Funny how articles about fasting et al forget their supposedly such-valued mantra: 'choice'.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -of-living

Another good policy, one I was actually discussing with my dad about a month or so back and one I had hoped Labour would change. I also like the cost of living part being added to it.

It’s a better policy than a blanket £15 minimum wage because that could potentially be wiped out with inflation.

Some say oh young people won’t get employed, I’m sorry that pragmatism is bollocks. The government want to bang on about its vacancies so why would you differentiate? Also large parts of the country such as Cornwall will show its bollocks.

Well, a week on from this. Dr Rosena doesn't seem to have been sacked from the Shadow Cabinet. Notice assorted proper left twats affirming she was going to be sacked because Starmer hates Muslim women.