pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 15, 2022 14:00:28 GMT
Why would Labour honour pledges by Tory leadership candidates? The £400 is different as it has been formally announced. The May package included £150 Council Tax rebate for households in England in Council Tax bands A-D, £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for those on means tested benefits and One-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment. Could you point me to evidence that those are not also withdrawn in the Labour package. Firstly, just to say I hold no particular candle for the Labour proposal, although the Government has come up with nothing that meets the challenge so far either, but this is Labour's own account of it: "Stopping energy bills from rising is a fully-funded measure. We’d pay for that in three ways: First, with increased tax revenues from oil and gas producers. Labour would close the Government’s absurd loophole in their Energy profits levy, backdate the start date to when Labour first called for a windfall tax to January, and accounting for higher gas and oil prices, would raise £8bn. Second, we would use the already-pledged £14bn of non-targeted funding to prevent bills from rising, giving people the security to plan ahead, rather than giving that money back in hand-outs later on. Finally, by keeping energy bills down, we’ll reduce the rate of inflation, leading to a reduction in government debt interest payments of £7bn. That’s because higher inflation increases government expenditure – or ‘coupon payments’ – on gilts, which is how a significant proportion of government debt is held." labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-sets-out-labours-plan-to-address-the-tory-cost-of-living-crisis/Therefore it is "non-targeted" funding that is not being retained. Starmer has specifically said the targeted £650 stays: "An existing plan to give an extra £650 help for pensioners and those receiving universal credit would remain in place, Starmer said, and the party would also push ahead with changes to pre-payment meters, used by many of the most financially vulnerable households." www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/15/keir-starmer-radical-plan-freeze-energy-bills-needed-cut-inflation
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Aug 15, 2022 14:04:59 GMT
America's answer to Nadine Dorries
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2022 14:05:56 GMT
Thanks. That says :"An existing plan to give an extra £650 help for pensioners and those receiving universal credit would remain in place," So his £29bn package for 28m households =£1000 each -as he claims. But that includes the £400 they will not now get ( 40% ish of the "funding cost" ). So he is offering £600 new money-not £1000 Am I right ?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Aug 15, 2022 14:24:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 15, 2022 14:40:05 GMT
Fascinating how our colin (and most of the western world's media, it sometimes seems) is going full on looking to understand Labour's latest proposals on the energy cost crisis. Is it just me, but I don't recall this level of forensic analysis being applied to Conservative proposals. For a moment there I assumed I'd missed something and Keir Starmer had become PM sometime late last night. Zzzzz.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2022 14:46:19 GMT
Fascinating how our colin (and most of the western world's media, it sometimes seems) is going full on looking to understand Labour's latest proposals on the energy cost crisis. Is it just me, but I don't recall this level of forensic analysis being applied to Conservative proposals. For a moment there I assumed I'd missed something and Keir Starmer had become PM sometime late last night. Zzzzz....... To be fair alec I think it’s important to write off Labour’s ideas as soon as possible. In fact, leaving it when there is now a maximum of just two years left before the next General election seems to be a bit reckless to me.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Aug 15, 2022 14:48:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Aug 15, 2022 15:12:06 GMT
Personally I'm happy with a second bite of the windfall tax cherry, but I agree with colin that such forms of taxation should not be the norm and that long-term we need to regulate the sector more effectively.
Isn't Starmer's policy of withdrawing the £400 regressive? Poorer households generally live in smaller homes that use less energy. So in a sense the flat rate of benefit disproportionately favoured those who were less well off. Now that money is being withdrawn to put into a scheme which will effectively distribute the same funding on the basis of how much energy you consume.
I'm aware that 'targeted support' can sometimes be a government euphemism for 'hardly any' - but I'd maintain (or increase) the amount Labour plan to spend, I just wish it were distributed a little more equitably. hi lefthanging Well 'targeted support' often requires some method of means testing which inherently reduces the no that take it up, and increases cost to the system in terms of administration.
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Aug 15, 2022 15:38:54 GMT
Targeted support - otherwise known as mess.
Low income person - one bedroom apartment in a well structured house. She or he gets the subsidy for heating.
Slightly above middle income person with a partner, three children in a four bedroom house. No support.
So, the person who doesn't quite need that much support receives it, the family who needs it doesn't.
It would be very simple: we have data on average energy use by person and by single/dual sourced energy. Up to the average the unit cost is subsidised, nothing above it is subsidised, and the new price cap applies. The "average" must be transparent and independently verified.
Anyone with alternative energy (solar, earth, etc.) also receives subsidy.
Just as in the case of Corbyn, the current Labour leadership is interested in maintaining the state-handout dependent social layers (the Cons take it as a natural law) and not in abolishing it.
|
|
|
Post by moby on Aug 15, 2022 15:50:27 GMT
According to The Times eastdevonwatch.org/2022/08/15/three-in-four-tory-voters-back-labours-energy-plan/He is promising to cancel October’s price cap rise as well as one due in January, arguing it will save households £1,000 in the winter. At present bills are capped at an average of £1,971 a year but this has been forecast to exceed £4,000 over the colder months.
Starmer said people were “scared about how they’ll get through the winter” arguing that his plan was “a direct response to the national economic emergency that is leaving families fearing for the future”.
Labour says that it would pay for the plan by backdating the windfall tax imposed in May to January, closing loopholes in it and scrapping £400 payments to all households that would no longer be needed. The party also argues the freeze would save £7 billion in debt interest payments by reducing inflation driven by rising energy bills.
This is good imo not least because it gets people through the winter months
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Aug 15, 2022 16:08:35 GMT
Labour leads by 7%.
Westminster Voting Intention (14 August):
Labour 41% (+1) Conservative 34% (-1) Liberal Democrat 12% (–) Green 5% (–) Scottish National Party 4% (-) Reform UK 3% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (-) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 7 August
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti… pic.twitter.com/z9FTS9SbZ2
15/08/2022, 17:00
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2022 16:10:46 GMT
Fascinating how our colin (and most of the western world's media, it sometimes seems) is going full on looking to understand Labour's latest proposals on the energy cost crisis. Is it just me, but I don't recall this level of forensic analysis being applied to Conservative proposals. For a moment there I assumed I'd missed something and Keir Starmer had become PM sometime late last night. Zzzzz....... There aren't any "Conservative proposals" for the October Cap adjustment. There isn;'t a functioning government until Sept 4 or whatever it is. Some would say this is following convention when a PM is being replaced. Some would say it is no change at all no doubt. Starmer should not be telling people that they will get £1000 from him when £400 of it is already their entitlement from the government. As an aside , for those looking for an improvement from political leaders on the dishonest dialogue with voters which has been such a feature of the news in recent times , this will be disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Aug 15, 2022 16:28:50 GMT
Personally I'm happy with a second bite of the windfall tax cherry, but I agree with colin that such forms of taxation should not be the norm and that long-term we need to regulate the sector more effectively.
Isn't Starmer's policy of withdrawing the £400 regressive? Poorer households generally live in smaller homes that use less energy. So in a sense the flat rate of benefit disproportionately favoured those who were less well off. Now that money is being withdrawn to put into a scheme which will effectively distribute the same funding on the basis of how much energy you consume.
I'm aware that 'targeted support' can sometimes be a government euphemism for 'hardly any' - but I'd maintain (or increase) the amount Labour plan to spend, I just wish it were distributed a little more equitably. hi lefthanging Well 'targeted support' often requires some method of means testing which inherently reduces the no that take it up, and increases cost to the system in terms of administration.Hello! So the reason that means-tested benefits often don't have full take up is because the government deliberately makes them 'opt-in' benefits (and then usually doesn't even bother to promote them effectively). But there's no reason why this has to be the case - they could just pay the benefits out to everybody who hits the criteria if they wanted to, no questions asked. I have worked on government business support schemes which did exactly this. I agree with you about the increased costs of means testing but I don't see it as a knock-down argument against the idea - in my experience "administrative burden" is just ministers' favourite excuse to do nothing or implement actively regressive policies. Costs are particularly low when the relevant data is already being captured with the existing welfare system. For example, we could pay a flat rate to every adult (easy), with an additional payment per child (aka temporary increase to child benefit) and an additional payment if they were in receipt of housing benefit (aka temporary increase to housing benefit). I'm not saying that would be perfectly equitably either but I think it would be fairer than just reducing energy costs at source.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,004
|
Post by neilj on Aug 15, 2022 17:02:42 GMT
mobyHe is promising to cancel 'October’s price cap rise as well as one due in January, arguing it will save households £1,000 in the winter. At present bills are capped at an average of £1,971 a year but this has been forecast to exceed £4,000 over the colder months.' If those figures are right it could be saving £2,000 per household, perhaps it allows for the extra money they are already getting?
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Aug 15, 2022 17:20:02 GMT
moby He is promising to cancel 'October’s price cap rise as well as one due in January, arguing it will save households £1,000 in the winter. At present bills are capped at an average of £1,971 a year but this has been forecast to exceed £4,000 over the colder months.' If those figures are right it could be saving £2,000 per household, perhaps it allows for the extra money they are already getting? Which reminds me of the really old joke... A new recruit at a company is trying to impress his new boss. "I ran behind the bus, instead of catching it, so I saved £2.50!" "You should have run behind a taxi. You'd have saved £10"
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 15, 2022 17:23:45 GMT
Thanks. That says :"An existing plan to give an extra £650 help for pensioners and those receiving universal credit would remain in place," So his £29bn package for 28m households =£1000 each -as he claims. But that includes the £400 they will not now get ( 40% ish of the "funding cost" ). So he is offering £600 new money-not £1000 Am I right ? But stopping the bills rising by another £2,000. You seem to be missing that bit.
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Aug 15, 2022 17:50:55 GMT
lefthanging. In theory, that sounds so sensible. It is rather like the temporary uplift in Universal credit isn't it? Simple and efficient. The problem though is that our benefit system is unbelievably complicated, often for good resons, consequently all sorts of people missed out. Those on what are callled legacy benefits for instance, Employment Support Allowance for disabled people, did not get the uplift. It amounted to over £1,200 for people who receive on average only £76 a week. Universal payments have a number of advantages, not least that no one misses out.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
Member is Online
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 15, 2022 18:03:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Aug 15, 2022 18:08:30 GMT
From a personal perspective, I'd prefer ongoing lower bills than a one off payment which will cover two months of rises then have to find hundreds a month starting from a few weeks before Christmas, unless I've misunderstood how the various complicated rebates and loans and stuff works. Which is likely, since I've never believed the Tory line will hold.
It looks like the BBC are going with the new covid jab as today's headlines, so the Labour plan will be largely ignored until the new PM does a screeching U-turn as their first act of government and loses any chance of a honeymoon. Which is probably why Johnson is hiding or on holiday, depending how you look at it, since there is nothing he wants more than to see his successor fail, like Ted Heath crossed with the Marquis de Sade.
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Aug 15, 2022 18:43:51 GMT
lefthanging . In theory, that sounds so sensible. It is rather like the temporary uplift in Universal credit isn't it? Simple and efficient. The problem though is that our benefit system is unbelievably complicated, often for good resons, consequently all sorts of people missed out. Those on what are callled legacy benefits for instance, Employment Support Allowance for disabled people, did not get the uplift. It amounted to over £1,200 for people who receive on average only £76 a week. Universal payments have a number of advantages, not least that no one misses out. Good points. I do favour making the majority of the payment universal for the reasons you provide. This could be via a flat payment to everybody as I've mentioned or directly tackling energy costs as in the Labour model. Still, there are benefits - such as child benefit - which are not 'legacy benefits' and could function as a decent proxy for those in need of greater support. Basically I think part of our response such be making the welfare system more generous in general - particularly given the likely long-term (permanent?) nature of the crisis and the fact that the cost of keeping prices down permanently looks to be unaffordable.
|
|
|
Post by davem on Aug 15, 2022 18:45:31 GMT
Well the Labour plan has set a marker down for the government, who will be judged by how much their proposals vary from this new base line. If you are better off under the next set of Tory proposals you will be happy with the government if not you will prefer Labour.
However if the e government copy these proposals Labour will be able to claim credit as they did for the windfall tax.
It will be interest to see how the government react.
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Aug 15, 2022 18:59:54 GMT
lefthanging . In theory, that sounds so sensible. It is rather like the temporary uplift in Universal credit isn't it? Simple and efficient. The problem though is that our benefit system is unbelievably complicated, often for good resons, consequently all sorts of people missed out. Those on what are callled legacy benefits for instance, Employment Support Allowance for disabled people, did not get the uplift. It amounted to over £1,200 for people who receive on average only £76 a week. Universal payments have a number of advantages, not least that no one misses out. Good points. I do favour making the majority of the payment universal for the reasons you provide. This could be via a flat payment to everybody as I've mentioned or directly tackling energy costs as in the Labour model. Still, there are benefits - such as child benefit - which are not 'legacy benefits' and could function as a decent proxy for those in need of greater support. Basically I think part of our response such be making the welfare system more generous in general - particularly given the likely long-term (permanent?) nature of the crisis and the fact that the cost of keeping prices down permanently looks to be unaffordable. Don't forget though that even child benefit is means tested now, and in a peculiarly unfair manner.
I know that I bang on a bit about disabled people, but the additional costs born by us for all sorts of things; extra heating because of poor mobility; extra electricity for charging wheelchairs or home dialysis; expensive specialised diets etc have not been reflected in the payments that have been announced so far. Keeping the bills lower by fixing the cap could well be the best answer for a number of people.
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Aug 15, 2022 19:14:50 GMT
Good points. I do favour making the majority of the payment universal for the reasons you provide. This could be via a flat payment to everybody as I've mentioned or directly tackling energy costs as in the Labour model. Still, there are benefits - such as child benefit - which are not 'legacy benefits' and could function as a decent proxy for those in need of greater support. Basically I think part of our response such be making the welfare system more generous in general - particularly given the likely long-term (permanent?) nature of the crisis and the fact that the cost of keeping prices down permanently looks to be unaffordable. Don't forget though that even child benefit is means tested now, and in a peculiarly unfair manner.
I know that I bang on a bit about disabled people, but the additional costs born by us for all sorts of things; extra heating because of poor mobility; extra electricity for charging wheelchairs or home dialysis; expensive specialised diets etc have not been reflected in the payments that have been announced so far. Keeping the bills lower by fixing the cap could well be the best answer for a number of people.
In not too long I will be becoming a father for the first time so I'll look forward to child benefit fun in future! (agree it is means tested in a very unfair way - two parents earning £50,000 each would receive the benefit in full, whereas a single parent on £60,000 would get zilch - although ultimately those are still high salaries) I hadn't considered the additional costs faced by people with disabilities (and no doubt other groups) which I agree is another reason to ensure the bulk of government funding is universal. Of course, if universal credit had been fully implemented on time and the disability component of it were more generous this would be less of an issue - but in the absence of that I can see the attraction of a 'quick and dirty' universal solution.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 15, 2022 19:26:02 GMT
Labour leads by 7%. Westminster Voting Intention (14 August): Labour 41% (+1) Conservative 34% (-1) Liberal Democrat 12% (–) Green 5% (–) Scottish National Party 4% (-) Reform UK 3% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (-) Other 2% (+1) Changes +/- 7 August redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti… pic.twitter.com/z9FTS9SbZ2 15/08/2022, 17:00 Some (mostly) better news for Starmer in that poll as well. Johnson and Starmer Net Approval Ratings (14 August): Keir Starmer: -4% (+4) Boris Johnson: -20% (-3) Changes +/- 7 August Keir Starmer Approval Rating (14 August): Disapprove: 33% (-1) Approve: 29% (+3) Net: -4% (+4) Changes +/- 7 August Lowest 'Net Competent' rating for the Government that we've recorded. Government Competency Rating (14 August): Incompetent: 54% (+2) Competent: 13% (-5) Net: -41% (-7) Changes +/- 7 August At this moment, which of the following individuals do voters think would be the better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom? Starmer vs Truss: Truss 41% (+3) Starmer 37% (+2) Starmer vs Sunak: Starmer 41% (+1) Sunak 34% (–) Changes +/- 7 August
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 15, 2022 19:30:39 GMT
One final thought on the R&W poll above. Only 13% of people think the government is competent but 34% would vote for it anyway. Presumably they think Labour would be worse, but I'm tempted to blame masochism!
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,004
|
Post by neilj on Aug 15, 2022 20:01:53 GMT
Interesting polling
|
|
|
Post by charles on Aug 15, 2022 20:08:32 GMT
Came to UKPR to get expert opinion on Labour's plans. In general the response seems a bit lukewarm, with the main criticisms being that it is not sufficiently targeted, and is at best a stop-gap measure. This seems a tad ungenerous to me. I like this scheme because a) I have long been wanting Labour to start saying something more definite and positive and here it is b)I am genuinely horrified at the conservative leadership debate - what on earth have tax cuts and a bonfire of the regulations that enable us to trade with the EU got to do with climate change, the cost of living crisis, the collapse of our services, looming strikes, massive inequality or other great issues of our time. At least this is a plan that would address the immediate threat of destitution caused by the fuel price rise.
So yes, it is not a long-term solution for inflation or our energy problems and it does not address inequality. But as I understand it, a sizeable proportion of our national debt has interest rates linked to inflation. A non-targeted scheme will be easier to put into effect and will bring down the measures of inflation and this is key to the scheme's viability. So yes, in my view Labour should be trying to create a fairer society, and I want to know how it is going to go about that. In the meantime, however, it has to stop people freezing or starving over this coming winter and it looks to me as if this scheme will do that. It also seems to me that the government is going to have to do something very similar and I will be interested to look on UKPR to see how that will be received.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 21:37:54 GMT
Those people obviously don't remember how utterly shambolic energy and rail in particular were when they were nationalised. My energy bills dropped a lot when they were privatised ( and of course a lot of people made a bit of money on the shares), and I believe there are now far more people using the railways than before privatisation.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 21:49:02 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 15, 2022 21:49:34 GMT
charles - thank you for a slightly saner view of Starmer's plan. Little mention today of course of the longer term proposals, which Labour have backed for a very long time indeed, of much greater spending on energy efficiency measures, scrapped by Cameron in his rush to 'ditch the green crap'. A short term, wide ranging fix for energy costs, also benefiting the inflation situation, alongside an ongoing long term project to make homes more efficient marks Labour out as a party genuinely grappling with the needs of the country, as opposed to the Tories, who remain grappling with their egos, with nothing to say on the important issues. Time, I think, for everyone to get some perspective.
|
|