New Tory Leader

[Barbe bleu 809]

1 hour ago, 1902 said:

North Sea investments take years to come to fruition. Why would a windfall tax make a sizeable difference to current supply? Additionally, why would fossil fuel companies invest when they know that the energy mix is moving away from them in most countries? 

Additionally why would we try to encourage more investment in the North Sea given that these elevated prices will be temporary and once they lower again those investments could be unproductive?

For as long as gas is very profitable, most companies are going to be producing as much as they can sell. A windfall tax doesn't necessarily mean eliminating substantial profit, just lowering them.

Are you arguing for a windfall tax that has already been applied?

[1902 1,167]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Are you arguing for a windfall tax that has already been applied?

Just arguing the case against one seems weak and asking for a clarification as to why they would be a problem in this context.

[sonyc 5,481]

9 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Just arguing the case against one seems weak and asking for a clarification as to why they would be a problem in this context.

What appears staggering is that the borrowing Truss is introducing at £150bn dwarfs the whole of the cost of the furlough scheme (I'm reading it's about double). The energy companies stand to make £170bn of unexpected profit. UNEXPECTED!

I'm in full agreement with Starmer - just why the hell wouldn't you tax those profits instead of saying you want to stimulate investment? Is it being bone headed and being so ideological that you can't possibly put a break on big business? Isn't this crisis actually the best time to be taxing such profits?

It doesn't make any common sense. At all. As you've pointed out in your previous good post it will take a long time to even boost supply and for a fossel  fuel we all know we are expected to be less reliant on.

It is long term a poor policy and in the short term it's madness.

Isn't it?

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,500]

8 hours ago, 1902 said:

North Sea investments take years to come to fruition. Why would a windfall tax make a sizeable difference to current supply? Additionally, why would fossil fuel companies invest when they know that the energy mix is moving away from them in most countries? 

Additionally why would we try to encourage more investment in the North Sea given that these elevated prices will be temporary and once they lower again those investments could be unproductive?

For as long as gas is very profitable, most companies are going to be producing as much as they can sell. A windfall tax doesn't necessarily mean eliminating substantial profit, just lowering them.

Framing it in terms of whether it will deter new long-term investment is wide of the mark. North Sea production has been in decline for some time, so we're talking about a measure that can only accelerate that decline.

Windfall tax is all very well when you're talking about easy access land-based production, but the North sea is an expensive offshore environment; we don't have any easy access reserves that will still run if the North Sea is made less attractive than it already is.

https://worldoil.com/news/2022/3/29/declining-north-sea-output-means-uk-could-soon-import-80-of-its-gas-and-oil-warns-oeuk-report/

You'll just finish up with nothing to tax and a higher dependence on imports that are out of reach of options for upstream taxation.

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barbe bleu 809]

5 hours ago, 1902 said:

Just arguing the case against one seems weak and asking for a clarification as to why they would be a problem in this context.

I guess the arguments against windfall taxes are that if you do it too much you will eventually drive all investment away.

It's the same lesson that the Dutch learnt and the huge spanish empire didn't back in the 16th century, so I'd say its a pretty fundamental one.

This windfall tax has been designed to encourage, not discourage investment though so clearly someone attended history class.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You'll just finish up with nothing to tax and a higher dependence on imports that are out of reach of options for upstream taxation.

 

No, we won't because we want to get away from oil and gas whether it comes from the North Sea or much further away, to cleaner, cheaper and more secure renewable production of our own.

And we're perfectly capable of doing so were it not for the fact that we have several times elected a set of incompetent morons who have followed an energy 'policy' of mind-bending stupidity in which they have hobbled the development of energy sources which are both cheaper and clean in order to continue to support dirty and expensive carbon sources (and for which they handsomely funded by their corporate backers).

The idiot Truss seems to be determined to double-down on this stupidity although whether any of her looney-tunes ideas will survive contact with reality for long remains to be seen, but from what we saw last week it seems very unlikely - for which we should all be grateful 😀

Edited September 11, 2022 by Creative Midfielder

[littleyellowbirdie 2,500]

10 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

No, we won't because we want to get away from oil and gas whether it comes from the North Sea or much further away, to cleaner, cheaper and more secure renewable production of our own.

And we're perfectly capable of doing so were it not for the fact that we have several times elected a set of incompetent morons who have followed an energy 'policy' of mind-bending stupidity in which they have hobbled the development of energy sources which are both cheaper and clean in order to continue to support dirty and expensive carbon sources (and for which they handsomely funded by their corporate backers).

The idiot Truss seems to be determined to double-down on this stupidity although whether any of her looney-tunes ideas will survive contact with reality for long remains to be seen, but from what we saw last week it seems very unlikely - for which we should all be grateful 😀

That's great, but we're not going to be in a state where we won't need North Sea Oil and Gas any time even in the next five years, but there will be plenty of people freezing to death over the winter if we can't secure supplies; North Sea oil and gas is the only oil and gas that is guaranteed to be able to supply the UK in an extreme crisis. 

[Herman 9,692]

Scrapping the cap to banker's bonuses. Well done Kwasi, a real vote winner. 

[TheGunnShow 5,905]

32 minutes ago, Herman said:

Scrapping the cap to banker's bonuses. Well done Kwasi, a real vote winner. 

Further evidence that this Tory party is the party of financial hucksters and not the aspirational working class.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

On 12/09/2022 at 07:30, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's great, but we're not going to be in a state where we won't need North Sea Oil and Gas any time even in the next five years, but there will be plenty of people freezing to death over the winter if we can't secure supplies; North Sea oil and gas is the only oil and gas that is guaranteed to be able to supply the UK in an extreme crisis. 

That seems a bit of an irrelevant truism - whilst it is obviously the case that from where we are now we still will require North Sea oil and gas for the next 5 years, so what - we will still have North Sea oil and gas for the next five years.

But as far as stopping people freezing to death this winter (or next) is concerned, then trying to develop new fields in the North Sea or fracking for gas on land will do precisely nothing to help.

But ramping up renewable capacity and a massive home insulation program are both measures which could have an immediate impact, even on this winter and a huge impact on next winter, and all at the fraction of the cost of the nonsense that the idiot Truss is proposing.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Creative Midfielder

[Yellow Fever 3,732]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Further evidence that this Tory party is the party of financial hucksters and not the aspirational working class.

Its politically inept to say the least - but then that's Truss.

I can just see the Bankers 'loads of money' with wads of notes in the face of starving, freezing nurses this autumn.

What could possibly go wrong? 

In reality it's just the 'Britannia Unchained' mantra coming through which most unknowingly it seems voted for - taken in by Johnson. 

[TheGunnShow 5,905]

Think this diagram was pretty amusing.

[Surfer 1,547]

How embarrassing ... might as well get used to it though. 

 

 

[Surfer 1,547]

Still ... at least she got (or gave away) a trade deal with Australia. 

So much for the strategy of growth. Declining EU trade, no US offset. 

Time for a new leader .... just not a Tory one. 

[Herman 9,692]

😀

 

[KiwiScot 1,436]

Thinking of what to give your loved ones this Christmas and maybe those proud lefties for their secret santa. Ladies, gents and gender neutral small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri I give you...

Edited September 20, 2022 by KiwiScot

[Herman 9,692]

Written by Harry Cole. Through tears, pining for his missing master.😀

Anyway, there is a mysterious case of disappearing tory twitter accounts. Dorries, Jenkyns and now Gullis. They're all dreadful people to be fair but it seems strange that they are dropping off. I wonder what they are up to?

[Herman 9,692]

[sonyc 5,481]

56 minutes ago, Herman said:

Her strategy is dependent on so many variables! Just to produce the trickle she sees as growth! It could be a bit of a disaster. Like making a huge bet when you don't have the bank balance to support such a bet. Incredibly risky, foolhardy, almost dangerous. Not even to be assessed by the office of budget responsibility. It is a punt let's face it. No wonder Sunak made his view known.

 

Extract from Behr today in the Guardian:

For The Plan to work, a number of things must not go wrong. Financial markets must not be spooked by the government writing blank cheques and waving its hand dismissively at the national debt. The energy crisis must not drag on to the point where the government cannot afford to subsidise households and businesses any more, and starts clawing money back from people who are in no condition to pay. Jacob Rees-Mogg, as energy secretary, will have to break the bad news to people without coming across as a patronising toff who has never wanted for anything in his life.

Fiscal incontinence must not leak out as even higher inflation. A distressed public must not lose patience through a ruinous winter and not place any more demands on a health service that is already struggling to cope with a mild autumn.

Scores of Tory MPs who never backed Truss for the leadership must not worry about sliding opinion polls, nor rebel in votes on things their irate constituents care about. Hardline Brexiters will have to bite their lips and not complain about the inevitable compromises required to keep trade moving with the EU. The proceeds of any economic growth stimulated by The Plan must not appear to fatten the usual corporate cats at the expense of everyone else.

[Herman 9,692]

Thanks sonyc. My feeling is that she was maneuvered that at the behest of the ERG and she will just puppet whatever failed, disaster capitalist policy they want. They're going to suck every last penny out of the country until they are inevitably booted out. And then dump it all on her. The country is in serious trouble.

[Herman 9,692]

Apologies, that was dark and depressing. A mildly optimistic view is the Truss's policies will finally wake up some of our fellow compatriots and they will see the unfairness of tory policies and rotteness of brexit in general.

[Yellow Fever 3,732]

It's simply a do or die approach. She has two years to the next elections and the Tory's electoral chances look hopeless.

So she (and the ERG group) are simply 'all in'. Their ideology will run riot for two years with a small chance of success - and a large chance of economic disaster for the UK. Whatever, it will change the UK they argue - point of no return. It relies most of all on the markets not being spooked and an even deeper currency crisis. Remember we buy all our energy in USD! 

Who cares - not them. It's all blind (no OBR) faith.

Edited September 21, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,273]

Truss' one consistency is to abolish anything that might yield truth about the miserable failures and corruption of this Tory regime. No need for an ethics advisor, no need for the OBR to scrutinize the government's economic plan, and no doubt Truss' previous call for the abolition of the inquiry into Johnson's criminal and corrupt behaviour to follow soon.

[sonyc 5,481]

The cartoonist has drawn Truss really well here...a kind of bent over stance ...and her walk too. Quite an observation to then translate so well.

 

[king canary 7,559]

19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It's simply a do or die approach. She has two years to the next elections and the Tory's electoral chances look hopeless.

So she (and the ERG group) are simply 'all in'. Their ideology will run riot for two years with a small chance of success - and a large chance of economic disaster for the UK. Whatever, it will change the UK they argue - point of no return. It relies most of all on the markets not being spooked and an even deeper currency crisis. Remember we buy all our energy in USD! 

Who cares - not them. It's all blind (no OBR) faith.

One thing you certainly can't accuse Truss of so far is bit a populist. Almost every economic policy she seems to keen on is likely to be deeply unpopular and fruther cement the Tory brand as one that is only interest in helping the rich get richer. Cutting workers rights, lowering corporation tax, lack of a windfall tax etc etc all point to someone driven largely by ideology over any sense of electoral popularity. I'd almost admire it if it wasn't for the fact that nobody voted for these policies. I've never been in the 'new PM means a general election has to happen' camp but when the new PM in question seems to be creating an entirely new manifesto then surely people need to get a say on if that is what they want?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

It does seem symptomatic of the massive split in Tory ranks. We now have the right firmly in charge and its a return to the Norman Tebbit days. If you don't like it, tough. Its their only reaction to the chaos they have already caused by Brexit and now their further belief that trickle down will have any means of hydration when the champagne gets to us at the bottom of the glasses.

The  fact that they need to encourage investment is because of their outdated belief in shillings and pence and chains and roods. The rest of the world has moved on and are forging new alliances. We are great for state funerals but pish poor at economics.

[Yellow Fever 3,732]

34 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'd almost admire it if it wasn't for the fact that nobody voted for these policies. I've never been in the 'new PM means a general election has to happen' camp but when the new PM in question seems to be creating an entirely new manifesto then surely people need to get a say on if that is what they want?

Yes. Totally agree - although to be fair it's what many warned Brexit ultimately meant. Nothing more than a shift to the US system.

2 weeks notice for everybody, hire and fire, reduced benefits, don't work don't eat and I hope your employer has private medical benefits - a few hundred USD a month otherwise. Didn't save for your pension - Oh dear. Some will swim, many will sink but hey ho that's what you voted for.

Edited September 21, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[sonyc 5,481]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

One thing you certainly can't accuse Truss of so far is bit a populist. Almost every economic policy she seems to keen on is likely to be deeply unpopular and fruther cement the Tory brand as one that is only interest in helping the rich get richer. Cutting workers rights, lowering corporation tax, lack of a windfall tax etc etc all point to someone driven largely by ideology over any sense of electoral popularity. I'd almost admire it if it wasn't for the fact that nobody voted for these policies. I've never been in the 'new PM means a general election has to happen' camp but when the new PM in question seems to be creating an entirely new manifesto then surely people need to get a say on if that is what they want?

Yep. I'm just surprised that there have been no Tory supporters on this thread (or others) casting doubts on these policies or her approach. On second thoughts ... maybe I shouldn't be though! I agree she is not appearing as populist. 

It is like some weird right wing cult...(not a typo) and following on from a complete psychopath / liar in Johnson. We need an election but just as important we need to see a very clear alternative mapped out by opposition parties. Less a critique needed (this lot will do that themselves) but we get to know 4 or 5 clear policies. Nice and simple for everyone to 'get' immediately.

Edited September 21, 2022 by sonyc

[horsefly 4,273]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Excellent summary! Just to add a further explanation to those Tories still struggling:

 

 

[1902 1,167]

On 11/09/2022 at 18:50, Barbe bleu said:

I guess the arguments against windfall taxes are that if you do it too much you will eventually drive all investment away.

It's the same lesson that the Dutch learnt and the huge spanish empire didn't back in the 16th century, so I'd say its a pretty fundamental one.

This windfall tax has been designed to encourage, not discourage investment though so clearly someone attended history class.

Ok, sorry for the late response but I never got notifications for replies. 

Abnormal profits based on bizarre geopolitical events do not factor in for companies making long term business decisions. They are just that 'windfalls'. Therefore tax on abnormal profit doesn't deter investment in the same way that normal taxes on gains can. 

The Spanish empire collapsed because it didn't understand inflation, not primarily because of taxation.