Rishi Sunak

west didsblue said:
The gas purchased from global supplies obviously has to purchased at the wholesale price, but if it chose to the government could exercise control over domestic supplies however much we import. They just chose not to and opted to stick with the current pricing model for energy. If they wanted to they could have made some emergency changes to the pricing model but they didn’t want to because they didn’t want to interfere with the private sector that produces and supplies the energy, and instead it was up to the consumer and taxpayer to fill the gap.

The levy you talk about was finally introduced after pressure from the opposition.
Click to expand...
Again, more stuff that can’t happen. In fact, you seem to be confusing different elements of the energy market.

You’re effectively advocating the requisitioning of domestic gas production, the imposition of an arbitrary and artificially low wholesale price for this supply and a ban on the export of domestic supplies. These actions would have partially influenced wholesale prices, and not in fact changed the OFGEM pricing model which you’re vaguely referencing, so your argument appears a bit confused here.

Also, on a broader point, the war in Ukraine represents a major supply shock for the energy market which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. If the UK government had done what you’re suggesting - and thankfully they didn’t - then how do you think this would have affected the willingness of producers to invest in UK projects versus others around the world, given the risk of further arbitrary interventions in the future? Do you think it would increase or decrease the willingness to invest in UK production, and over time do you think that UK production levels would be boosted or actually reduced?
 
Brewster's millions said:
Again, more stuff that can’t happen. In fact, you seem to be confusing different elements of the energy market.

You’re effectively advocating the requisitioning of domestic gas production, the imposition of an arbitrary and artificially low wholesale price for this supply and a ban on the export of domestic supplies. These actions would have partially influenced wholesale prices, and not in fact changed the OFGEM pricing model which you’re vaguely referencing, so your argument appears a bit confused here.

Also, on a broader point, the war in Ukraine represents a major supply shock for the energy market which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. If the UK government had done what you’re suggesting - and thankfully they didn’t - then how do you think this would have affected the willingness of producers to invest in UK projects versus others around the world, given the risk of further arbitrary interventions in the future? Do you think it would increase or decrease the willingness to invest in UK production, and over time do you think that UK production levels would be boosted or actually reduced?
Click to expand...
The reason that stuff can’t happen is because the government didn’t want it to happen. The current pricing model is such that unit prices to consumers are based on the most expensive part of the energy mix meaning every energy producer not using gas started making huge profits. That is a model the government chose not to tamper with. There are a whole raft of things the government could have done but chose not to, and they left the consumer and taxpayer to shoulder the burden. Not sure why it’s so difficult to understand that governments can make temporary rule changes in emergencies. As for the somewhat pathetic excuse about producers not being willing to invest in the UK, that’s complete bullshit and only Truss was daft enough to say it out loud. It was an extraordinary situation that called for extraordinary measures and the government bottled it and favoured big business over consumers and taxpayers.

You are making out that I was advocating specific measures whereas I was pointing out that there are numerous potential measures that could have been taken that someone more qualified than you or me could have made recommendations about. The government chose not to consider anything except a handout costing the country (i.e. taxpayer) billions.
 
Vic said:
All that on one phone and no record anywhere else?

And many of those aren't covid relevant. What could the inquiry do if there was some revelation about national security?*

"Unnamed former prime minister was a Russian agent (and it's not Harold Wilson)"

* Serious question
Click to expand...
The records on other phones are easily traceable, and it's all part of the intrigue as far as I'm concerned. It's not the traceable messages between Johnson and other ministers and party activists in the UK that are a concern, but messages between phones that aren't in the UK.

It may well be a covid enquiry, but cabinet officials are duty bound to report any illegality they discover.

Those rules helped kick Johnson into touch in the partygate enquiry. Much more was discovered than expected, and the duty bound cabinet officials reported their findings accordingly.

If there are breaches of national security discovered on his phone, then it passes into a criminal investigation, far beyond the remit of a government enquiry.

Let's bear in mind Johnson was regarded as such a security risk when he was Foriegn Secretary, sensitive information was witheld from him. The security services warned him his absolute determination to grant a seat in the House of Lords to a Russian tory party donor while he was PM was a mistake.

He repressed, repeatedly as PM, the findings into a report about Russian interference in the Brexit campaign and where the funding for that came from.

He escaped his minders and attended a party hosted by a KGB official in Italy.

If you're OK with that, then so be it.

I think some questions need to be answered, and if his phone records provide some clarity into what he and his cohorts were thinking, it's a subject of interest to all of us.
 
another lump of red meat for the base who have ill conceived understanding of what a student does and how they benefit from a degree - its not a loan its a student tax - a levy on education. Its easy to understand when you realise they have not been able to define what a rip off degree is nor what a good job is. Its mostly about making higher education available only to the better off

 
bluethrunthru said:
another lump of red meat for the base who have ill conceived understanding of what a student does and how they benefit from a degree - its not a loan its a student tax - a levy on education. Its easy to understand when you realise they have not been able to define what a rip off degree is nor what a good job is. Its mostly about making higher education available only to the better off

Click to expand...


It's moronic, rather than address the way student tuition is funded let's remove some of the deck chairs .

Plenty of Tory MPs and voters benefit from students as their landlords.
 
bluethrunthru said:
another lump of red meat for the base who have ill conceived understanding of what a student does and how they benefit from a degree - its not a loan its a student tax - a levy on education. Its easy to understand when you realise they have not been able to define what a rip off degree is nor what a good job is. Its mostly about making higher education available only to the better off

Click to expand...

Good points well made. Just who defines ‘low value’. If the criteria
is ‘future earnings potential’ then vocations like Nursing or Social Care are near the bottom of the degree pile.
I took a look at what politicians elected in 2019 studied. About half read Politics, History, Philosophy or English. These would fail my personal definition of useful.

I have posted before about doing some work in the FCO. The Financial Director had no formal accountancy training being by trade a career politician and proudly displayed the book ‘accountancy for dummies’ in his bookcase.

All cabinet ministers and senior government post holders should be forced to undergo a basic education in key subjects critical to their posts, starting with subjects like economic theory, finance and managing resources. Ideally they should have actually worked doing something.

Post school I did, by anyones reasoning, a shit course. it ignited my desire to learn and better myself and I ended up furthering my studies whilst I worked finally ending up with a respectable post grad masters degree and professional vocational qualification. I would never have done this without the stepping stone of the shit course.

Like you i believe this is just more gammon fodder- get the lazy arses into work whilst the Sunak class swan about at Oxford or Cambridge or whatever studying classics or ways in which to shit on the people who actually contribute or need help.

​

 
BeerIsTheBest said:
Good points well made. Just who defines ‘low value’. If the criteria
is ‘future earnings potential’ then vocations like Nursing or Social Care are near the bottom of the degree pile.
Click to expand...

not a coincidence either that these are jobs where its Govt themselves who determine the pay - or its worth putting it another way. Ten years of no pay rises is what makes them in the Govt eyes poor jobs that have been made poorer by the actions of said govt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.