Energy bills: Five questions about Keir Starmer's plan

[Baff]

Am export ban strikes me as the most obvious thing that could be done but isn't being done.

[B0ycey]

Maybe because although the Labour approach is the better, for most of us it still would not actually solve the problem. Because Labour are now so much more likely to win the next election. Why not go ahead with their own ideology , and continue to molly coddle their big business friends?
If the English Tory rump with the never ending support of ,what we once called Fleet St, should win the next election, then nothing lost for them.
The real ,and substantial expense for the country is yet to come, in the development of alternative sources for future needs. Where that comes from and how much it will cost is rarely yet talked of.

Because the Tories are idiots and they don't want to implement a windfall tax because despite it being the best idea, they don't want to be seen using the oppositions ideas. It has nothing to do with investment given BP has already given the go head to invest.

As for what can be done, well we could buy Russian gas in the simplist idea... alhough anyone who implements a price cap in December can't be a customer. Or we could slash our consumption by 30%. Or we could join the EU fuel initiative who invited us to join where we s bulk buy and share gas which means we are not competing to buy the same fucking stuff bidding up the price of wholesale but would defacto have to cut our consumption given they rely more on Russian import contracts than us. Apart from that what else can be done. We live in a free market and gas at the moment is a low supply high demand product.

[Good old]

Well you can do a detailed analysis of Labours plan. A windfall tax and preventing a tax cut for the rich to pay for the energy cap to stay where it is. Liz Truss's idea is to not do any of that, increase the cap to £2500 and then have us borrow £100bn. I suspect Labour would have had to borrow as well, but no where near Truss's idea given they actually have £10bn+ more tax revenue and £40bn+ on a windfall tax.

Also, another issue I have with Truss not taxing the f**king colossal profits from North Sea Oil is their principle is that BP and Shell will invest in the UK production with it. Firstly that is an assumption like the trickle down effect is but not only that but BP has already said they will invest in the UK no matter what... given they have no where else to go... and that the UK are issuing yet more licences anyway.

Maybe because although the Labour approach is the better, for most of us it still would not actually solve the problem. Because Labour are now so much more likely to win the next election. Why not go ahead with their own ideology , and continue to molly coddle their big business friends?
If the English Tory rump with the never ending support of ,what we once called Fleet St, should win the next election, then nothing lost for them.
The real ,and substantial expense for the country is yet to come, in the development of alternative sources for future needs. Where that comes from and how much it will cost is rarely yet talked of.

[B0ycey]

The bottom line is that Labour is not in a position to be able to implement anything, so a detailed analysis of it's plans are an utter irrelevence.

Well you can do a detailed analysis of Labours plan. A windfall tax and preventing a tax cut for the rich to pay for the energy cap to stay where it is. Liz Truss's idea is to not do any of that, increase the cap to £2500 and then have us borrow £100bn. I suspect Labour would have had to borrow as well, but no where near Truss's idea given they actually have £10bn+ more tax revenue and £40bn+ on a windfall tax. 

Also, another issue I have with Truss not taxing the fucking colossal profits from North Sea Oil is their principle is that BP and Shell will invest in the UK production with it. Firstly that is an assumption like the trickle down effect is but not only that but BP has already said they will invest in the UK no matter what... given they have no where else to go... and that the UK are issuing yet more licences anyway.

[cromwell]

I have to agree with you. Preferably the problem of control should not have been set in the first place. The trouble with undoing the privatisation of all that is privatised has been ,other than political considerations, cost, huge cost.
Nothing has changed on that score, but unless control of some sort is exercised we will be taking the brunt of huge cost ,for the maintenance of profit for ever more.

Well oaks acorns and all that........ a mutual small beginnings and that's the middle  men sorted

[Good old]

Isn't that the point all this should've been sorted decades ago,by one or both sets of parties.

I have to agree with you. Preferably the problem of control should not have been set in the first place. The trouble with undoing the privatisation of all that is privatised has been ,other than political considerations, cost, huge cost.
Nothing has changed on that score, but unless control of some sort is exercised we will be taking the brunt of huge cost ,for the maintenance of profit for ever more.

[cromwell]

You are right,the only question asked should be to the government . Having said that , what I don't hear  are from either Tory or Labour is a good long term solution to the problem. Short term is in doubt, and very expensive anyway. Maybe  as things stand Labour should be getting it's head around the long term.

Isn't that the point all this should've been sorted decades ago,by one or both sets of parties.

[Good old]

The bottom line is that Labour is not in a position to be able to implement anything, so a detailed analysis of it's plans are an utter irrelevence.

A detailed analysis of whatever the government comes up with is what we will need.

Labour and others can do their jobs and pick it to pieces and say what they'd do better, but the plan that is actually going to be implemented by the government should be centrepiece of any debate.

Later today we should get some of the details.

You are right,the only question asked should be to the government . Having said that , what I don't hear  are from either Tory or Labour is a good long term solution to the problem. Short term is in doubt, and very expensive anyway. Maybe  as things stand Labour should be getting it's head around the long term.

[srb7677]

The bottom line is that Labour is not in a position to be able to implement anything, so a detailed analysis of it's plans are an utter irrelevence.

A detailed analysis of whatever the government comes up with is what we will need.

Labour and others can do their jobs and pick it to pieces and say what they'd do better, but the plan that is actually going to be implemented by the government should be centrepiece of any debate.

Later today we should get some of the details.

[BBC News]

Energy bills: Five questions about Keir Starmer's plan

Labour is calling for the cap on energy prices to be frozen in October, as big rises loom.

Source: Energy bills: Five questions about Keir Starmer's plan