Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

"A Political crisis does not take a holday' 

 

Gordon Brown, three days ago.

 

This brain busting Labour plan is generally a rehash of the idea put forward by the Libs ages ago. It compensates energy firms and gives payouts to energy shareholders plus uses tax payers money subsidise the rich with a cap they don't need.

 

It has little relevance to Brown's plan. It costs more than renationalisation and is temporary for six or so months. It offers nothing to small businesses.

 

Renationalisation is the answer. 

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

[Moo]

And is his plan to present what an alternative would look like, or to put pressure on the Tories? Because surely they're not going to do anything that would affect profits, they'd rather give us more money to give to them?

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Moo said:

And is his plan to present what an alternative would look like, or to put pressure on the Tories? Because surely they're not going to do anything that would affect profits, they'd rather give us more money to give to them?

As a political plan to put pressure on the Tories its OK..  As a practical plan it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

[Numero Veinticinco]

What would you do on energy, Gnasher? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

As a political plan to put pressure on the Tories its OK..  As a practical plan it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

No, it doesn't. Nor is it intended to, it's intention is to protect people from a rise from 1.9k to 5k. Fair enough if you're not interested. I also want poor people to die instead of supporting Starmer's plan. Much better outcome. 

 

If Johnson threw a bag of kittens into the Thames and Starmer jumped in and saved them, Gnasher would look over his shoulder and scream 'WHY THE FUCK DID YOU LET THE KITTENS GET WET'. 

[Strontium]

7 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

What would you do on energy, Gnasher? 

 

I believe his plan is to nationalise the energy firms, and this would magically lower the global wholesale cost of energy, somehow.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Strontium said:

 

I believe his plan is to nationalise the energy firms, and this would magically lower the global wholesale cost of energy, somehow.

Nah, I'm sure he has a fully costed plan that doesn't result in hundreds of billions in debt, the Tories screaming 'communist', the papers going mad, and parts of the electorate being turned away, in order to reduce the current levels and protected from a truly massive rises in the future. I'm just interested in what it is. 

 

Gnasher? 

[Moo]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

No, it doesn't. Nor is it intended to, it's intention is to protect people from a rise from 1.9k to 5k. Fair enough if you're not interested. I also want poor people to die instead of supporting Starmer's plan. Much better outcome. 

 

If Johnson threw a bag of kittens into the Thames and Starmer jumped in and saved them, Gnasher would look over his shoulder and scream 'WHY THE FUCK DID YOU LET THE KITTENS GET WET'. 

How does the opposition presenting an alternative view protect people from the rise?  Clearly he has to say something, I'm just not sure how effective it will be.  Shouldn't he be suggesting something for now that has a chance at succeeding but make clear it is not the long term solution?

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Moo said:

How does the opposition presenting an alternative view protect people from the rise? 

It doesn't. the policy's 'intention is to protect people from a rise from 1.9k to 5k'. But like everything he does, he's not in power so it's just words.

 

6 minutes ago, Moo said:

Shouldn't he be suggesting something for now that has a chance at succeeding but make clear it is not the long term solution?

Chance of succeeding as in 'would be adopted by the Tories'? I'm not sure that'll win him many fans. I think it'll be interesting to see what he has to say later. It'll all be wrong, not matter what he says, so there's that. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

 

I believe his plan is to nationalise the energy firms, and this would magically lower the global wholesale cost of energy, somehow.

You are indeed correct on your first appraisal Stronts.

 

Renationalisation would cost approx 20 billion less than this six month Labour plan.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

You are indeed correct on your first point Stronts.

 

Renationalisation would cost approx 20 billion less than this six month Labour plan.

Would love to see those figures. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Nah, I'm sure he has a fully costed plan that doesn't result in hundreds of billions in debt, the Tories screaming 'communist', the papers going mad, and parts of the electorate being turned away, in order to reduce the current levels and protected from a truly massive rises in the future. I'm just interested in what it is. 

 

Gnasher? 

Awful lot going on in that post.

[Gnasher]

17 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Would love to see those figures. 

The cost of Labour six month plan ( 25 billion ish?) minus whatever we feel generous enough to give to energy sector.. the 2.4  billion figure mentioned seems more than enough. I wouldn't pay them a penny tbh.

 

Permanent renationalisation would cost the taxpayers a lot less than this six month scheme, the cure costs less than the sticking plaster.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I support renationalisation. I think it makes sense in the long term, but pretending it's a solution to the current cost crisis is pretty wild. Suggesting it would cost £20bn less than Starmer's plan (which would cost £29bn) is also pretty interesting and if the figures - which I'm sure you're going to present any moment - work out, then I think we should do it immediately. Why are the stupid cunts in Labour and the stupid cunts in the Lib Dems and the stupid cunts in the Tory party not simply spending 9bn to entirely solve this crisis? 

 

Gnasher for PM. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

The cost of Labour six month plan ( 25 billion ish?) minus whatever we feel generous enough to give to energy sector.. the 2.4 million figure mentioned seems more than enough. I wouldn't pay them a penny tbh.

 

Permanent renationalisation would cost the taxpayers a lot less than this six month scheme, the cure costs less than the sticking plaster.

Yeah, '2.4 million' seems entirely fair for the entire energy sector. Yep, I'm on board. 2.4m to solve this energy crisis seems a way better deal. I'm with you on this one. 

 

Just a quick check... you're not, I dunno, making these figures up. Nah... don't worry. Still with you. 

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, '2.4 million' seems entirely fair for the entire energy sector. Yep, I'm on board. 2.4m to solve this energy crisis seems a way better deal. I'm with you on this one. 

 

Just a quick check... you're not, I dunno, making these figures up. Nah... don't worry. Still with you. 

Sorry billion.

[Gnasher]

Desperate Dan's makes some good points.

 

Why should taxpayers give these gouls anything?

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Sorry billion.

Thing is, it's such a big industry that it almost doesn't matter if it's million or billion. If you have to invoke the 'pay them whatever you want, or just nothing' figures, then of course it's going to be cheaper. It's just not real world though, is it. But look, let's say you get it for nothing. What then. You have to pay staff, you have to pay for the energy you're providing. If you're not passing the cost of that on to the customer, you're having to pay for it out of tax receipts or from debt (which I assume you're willing to pay back, or is that also in the 'money's free' section of the banking sheet?). 

 

I have sympathy with taking back utilities into public ownership for free, but it's not going to happen. It's just not. They'll be paid a shit load to take them back. 2-300bn, and on top of that you still have to work out how to help the customer. At that point, you might as well just pay their bills for them. It'll be cheaper. 

[Rico1304]

When you say ‘nationalise the energy industry’ exactly which bits do you mean?  

[TheSire]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

No, it doesn't. Nor is it intended to, it's intention is to protect people from a rise from 1.9k to 5k. Fair enough if you're not interested. I also want poor people to die instead of supporting Starmer's plan. Much better outcome. 

 

If Johnson threw a bag of kittens into the Thames and Starmer jumped in and saved them, Gnasher would look over his shoulder and scream 'WHY THE FUCK DID YOU LET THE KITTENS GET WET'. 

Perfect analogy at the end.

[Arniepie]

There is definitely a discussion to be had about renationalisation..but surely its going to be a possible long term issue 

Something needs to be done about the impending crises as the current incumbents have not got a fucking clue.

I agree with what others have said about people making profits on services you need to live. 

There is also a huge irony in the last fella getting utterly lambasted for saying this mass privatisation wasn't a great idea.

[Anubis]

It would cost approximately £60b to renationalise energy. After that you control and set the price, you can keep it low, and when things are more stable use profits to update the infrastructure or invest in renewables. We have wasted nearly that on blag contracts for stuff like PPE, or in written off fraud. There is no reason not to say this is a viable proposal and argue for it. None at all. 

[Moo]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It doesn't. the policy's 'intention is to protect people from a rise from 1.9k to 5k'. But like everything he does, he's not in power so it's just words.

 

Chance of succeeding as in 'would be adopted by the Tories'? I'm not sure that'll win him many fans. I think it'll be interesting to see what he has to say later. It'll all be wrong, not matter what he says, so there's that. 

I suppose that's what I'm asking. Is the plan to win fans, or to help people?

It wouldn't seem suited to doing either really.

On the other hand, if we go with the assumption that the Tories will not adopt what Starmer suggests then just putting out an alternative should force the Tories to put it near the top of their agenda and offer more help from October. You never know with this lot though.

[Gnasher]

The Starmanistas are out in force today. Seems they've won over Stronts who's busy knitting a half and half scarf in readiness for Starmers entry into the Arena for the Labour  conference in six weeks time.