When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[DynamicSpirit]

But if that salary rise is purely down to luck and totally unearned, and others have had to take a pay cut to make it possible? That's more analogous to the position of energy companies making bumper profits because of external circumstances.

But the money the energy companies are taking is earned: It's earned by virtue of that they've made investments in technology and in finding and sourcing energy supplies - and in the process, taken the risk that, if the market is poor then they lose a lot of money but if the market is good, they make a lot of profit. That's one of the fundamental characteristics of how a modern economy works. I guesss it'a a part of the economy that's hard to see if you're an employee because on the whole, employees earn their living purely by putting in so many hours of work: There's no element of reward-for-risk. But our prosperity depends on companies, investors and entrepreneurs making their living, partly by working, and partly by taking risks: The energy companies have earned a profit - and that's their reward for investing and risking that, if things turned out badly, they would lose all their money.

If whenever a risk turns out to have worked out really well and a company makes lots of money, the Government steps in and says, "you didn't really earn/deserve that money, we'll take it away from you", then who's going to risk investing in the UK in the future?

The irony is that Labour and the LibDems are campaigning for a windfall tax at exactly the moment when we're hoping that energy companies will invest (and risk) massively more than normal, in order to urgently secure more energy supplies so we can end our dependency on Russian energy.

 

[JamesT]

Another thing to note is that oil and gas companies already pay higher tax on their profits than most companies. They pay 30% corporation tax (normally it's 20%) plus an additional 10% supplementary tax. So we're already getting 40% of these 'bumper' 'unearned' profits.

 

[SteveM70]

But the money the energy companies are taking is earned: It's earned by virtue of that they've made investments in technology and in finding and sourcing energy supplies - and in the process, taken the risk that, if the market is poor then they lose a lot of money but if the market is good, they make a lot of profit.

There’s a big difference between a lot of profit and an excess profit

And of course, Rishi’s VAT take on energy will have more than doubled by November if the OFGEM predictions are correct. Maybe he should have a think about that

 

[Phil56]

The bigger question is how wisely will any windfall tax revenue be spent? The govt should find a way of paying it only to those most in need, rather than a scattergun approach that gives it to people who don't need it. Govts are generally very bad at actually understanding the details of the problem and the solution, so historically have been very poor at targeting support to those who need it most. It doesn't help when Phil Hammond (short term Chancellor) was ridiculed as "Spreadsheet Phil" by civil servants because he actually wanted to understand the detail of the proposal options that his civil servants were giving him! Sounds like the civil servants don't like being questionned. We saw it again with the covid support where money was thrown at people who didn't need it yet 3 million freelancers/self employed were excluded for no logical reason - some reasons were simply the Treasury not understanding the effects of the detail of their own rules, other reasons were political (i.e. as a punishment for their actions), etc. I am disheartened to believe that the proceeds of the windfall tax will just be randomly paid out, meaning those most in need don't see much of it!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The bigger question is how wisely will any windfall tax revenue be spent? The govt should find a way of paying it only to those most in need, rather than a scattergun approach that gives it to people who don't need it. Govts are generally very bad at actually understanding the details of the problem and the solution, so historically have been very poor at targeting support to those who need it most. It doesn't help when Phil Hammond (short term Chancellor) was ridiculed as "Spreadsheet Phil" by civil servants because he actually wanted to understand the detail of the proposal options that his civil servants were giving him! Sounds like the civil servants don't like being questionned. We saw it again with the covid support where money was thrown at people who didn't need it yet 3 million freelancers/self employed were excluded for no logical reason - some reasons were simply the Treasury not understanding the effects of the detail of their own rules, other reasons were political (i.e. as a punishment for their actions), etc. I am disheartened to believe that the proceeds of the windfall tax will just be randomly paid out, meaning those most in need don't see much of it!

I wonder if such a scheme proposed above for those most in need was put into operation, what financial figure would be the cut-off point at which this proposed scheme would be applied?

 

[dosxuk]

But the money the energy companies are taking is earned: It's earned by virtue of that they've made investments in technology and in finding and sourcing energy supplies - and in the process, taken the risk that, if the market is poor then they lose a lot of money but if the market is good, they make a lot of profit. That's one of the fundamental characteristics of how a modern economy works. I guesss it'a a part of the economy that's hard to see if you're an employee because on the whole, employees earn their living purely by putting in so many hours of work: There's no element of reward-for-risk. But our prosperity depends on companies, investors and entrepreneurs making their living, partly by working, and partly by taking risks: The energy companies have earned a profit - and that's their reward for investing and risking that, if things turned out badly, they would lose all their money.

If whenever a risk turns out to have worked out really well and a company makes lots of money, the Government steps in and says, "you didn't really earn/deserve that money, we'll take it away from you", then who's going to risk investing in the UK in the future?

In this case, the main UK energy producers are making a fortune, not because of their shrewd investments or entrepreneurial spirit, but because the global energy market has increased in value while their costs have not.

The UK is an energy rich country, something we have taken advantage of by connecting our resources to local countries, and then buying / selling depending on which is most cost effective at the time. Unfortunately for us, while the UK energy producers could seriously undercut the wider market, it's really not in their interest to do so, and instead can just reap the unexpected profits.

This is why the idea of a windfall tax is so appealing to many people, and increasingly the conservative party - these additional profits have not come as a result of extra work or extra success, they've come as a result of external factors pushing up what people are willing to pay.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In this case, the main UK energy producers are making a fortune, not because of their shrewd investments or entrepreneurial spirit, but because the global energy market has increased in value while their costs have not.

With respect, I think that claim fails to understand the nature of investing and risk. When you make an investment, one of the things (possibly the main thing) you are taking a risk on is on what the demand, and therefore the market price, for your product, will be. That the price is outside your control doesn't change that, if market conditions mean the price is higher than anyone expected, then that is your reward for investing and taking the risk of losing the money you spent investing.

If you think the money the energy companies are making is unfair and should be all taxed away, then ask yourself this: If it was the opposite situation - energy prices were unexpectedly very low, and the energy companies were therefore losing a fortune, for reasons that were completely not their fault, do you think the Labour Party would be proposing that the Government step in and cover their losses? Or is it more likely that Labour would be reminding us that this is a risk of business, or telling us that the companies must be punished for their lack of foresight?

Funnily enough, we actually have the answer to that question: I seem to recall that it was barely 6 months ago that a number of energy companies were facing financial ruin because their investment risks hadn't worked out, and a number of them did actually go bust. I don't recall any calls at the time to help those companies out. Yet when the opposite happens, and their investments pay off, suddenly everyone on the left is calling for their profits to be taken away!

 

[brad465]

I would say, not, it sounds appealing when so many people are struggling, but it's an absolutely terrible idea.

Imagine you do really well at work and your employer therefore gives you a salary rise. So for several months you're going in to work happy that you're earning more. Then suddenly the Government comes along and says, "Hey, we don't like you! We don't want you to earn that much. So - that extra money you've been earning - we're going to take it away from you now. And we'll do that by increasing your tax rate. Not the general tax rate for everyone. We're going to pass a special rule so that you have to pay more tax than everyone else. And by the way, it's retrospective, so we're also taking away the money that you've already been earning."

That's the windfall tax.

To my mind, the fact that Labour are so enthusiastically pushing it (without telling you what it actually means) just shows that Labour hasn't moved on from the Corbyn era. They've changed the man at the top, but they haven't changed their economy-wrecking anti-the-modern-economy ideology. Ditto the LibDems. On the other hand the fact that the Government haven't managed to counter such an appalling idea, and are just completely letting Labour run with it shows total incompetence when it comes to publicity on their part.

Out of interest, what will you say/do if the Government decided to introduce some form of Windfall tax, as the Telegraph are suggesting and stock market behaviour has been predicting?

A number of opinion polls have shown majority support for a windfall tax; majority support doesn't of course automatically make something a good idea, but the way to counteract it is to come up with an alternative proposal that can be presented as credible and effective. The Government are not doing this, if they were then Labour, etc. would have stopped pushing for a Windfall tax a long time ago because they'd have lost the argument.

Personally I'm not sure what whether or not windfall taxes here are sensible, but I do think there are better things that can be done, such as closing tax loopholes, getting VAT off energy bills and a major drive for building insulation and other efficiencies that reduce energy consumption.

 

[kristiang85]

Sue Gray has released her report: https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf

 

[dosxuk]

I seem to recall that it was barely 6 months ago that a number of energy companies were facing financial ruin because their investment risks hadn't worked out, and a number of them did actually go bust. I don't recall any calls at the time to help those companies out.

You are incorrect in your recollection. There were numerous calls for help from and for several of the energy supply companies, along with debates about how much support should they get in the face of such increases in their costs. And besides, the largest of those companies are effectively guaranteed by the state in the event of their failure due to the potential consequences of them collapsing anyway - the "too big to fail" guarantee.



On another note, Sue Gray's report has now been published ahead of a statement to the commons this afternoon - https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf

 

[DNCharingX]

Purely responding to the thread title, right about now?

https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Out of interest, what will you say/do if the Government decided to introduce some form of Windfall tax, as the Telegraph are suggesting and stock market behaviour has been predicting?

A fair question. I think if the Government did decide to do that, I'd be very disappointed. And I'd probably see it as evidence of a Government that has lost it's way, is running out of ideas, and is as a result just caving into populism. And I think I'd also become much more inclined to hope that Conservative MPs do get rid of Boris as leader, and replace him with someone who's more willing to do what is right rather than what is popular.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Funnily enough, we actually have the answer to that question: I seem to recall that it was barely 6 months ago that a number of energy companies were facing financial ruin because their investment risks hadn't worked out, and a number of them did actually go bust. I don't recall any calls at the time to help those companies out. Yet when the opposite happens, and their investments pay off, suddenly everyone on the left is calling for their profits to be taken away!

My understanding is that the windfall tax is directed at companies such as Shell, BP etc not those small companies that are the providers of energy and gas supplies (some of course did go out of business). The large producers have profited greatly out of Covid and the war in Ukraine, it was hardly successful investment practices, unless of course you are implying that the companies worked round the clock to promote Covid and encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine?

 

[BrummieBobby]

Sue Gray has released her report: https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf

But there's a war on! Surely we need the strong, stable leadership of a lying, corrupt narcissist and his loyal band of idiots to guide us through these uncertain times...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sue Gray has released her report: https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf

Ooh, thanks, I thought they'd hide it!

Edit: as Bozza said, nowt in there we didn't really already know. So I suspect he'll survive...again!

 

[MattRat]

A number of opinion polls have shown majority support for a windfall tax; majority support doesn't of course automatically make something a good idea, but the way to counteract it is to come up with an alternative proposal that can be presented as credible and effective.

And that's the crux of the matter. Yes, the populace may be wrong, but we live in a democracy, and they should be listened to. It's thanks to Johnson fearing his position that we are currently getting that. The silver lining to all that's going on.

Purely responding to the thread title, right about now?

https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf

It's very short. Like trying to drown someone in a puddle.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But there's a war on! Surely we need the strong, stable leadership of a lying, corrupt narcissist and his loyal band of idiots to guide us through these uncertain times...

You could well be describing Putin et al with that particular posting...

 

[Cdd89]

With respect, I think that claim fails to understand the nature of investing and risk. When you make an investment, one of the things (possibly the main thing) you are taking a risk on is on what the demand, and therefore the market price, for your product, will be.

I am about as pro-business as it’s possible to be, I don’t think energy companies are evil and in fact I own shares in several albeit not directly. However, even I think a windfall tax is a necessary idea.

I fully agree it’s not fair on companies, that retrospective taxation is generally to be avoided, and that politicians are hypocritical about dipping into profits but not covering losses (I’m against ‘employee profit sharing’, for example; another Corbynite policy) — but unprecedented price rises are not fair on consumers. It’s an awful situation all round and, politically, I don’t think it’s feasible not to expect energy companies to suffer some of the hardship.

What has not been said enough, perhaps, is that this is exceptional, not standard practice, and not to be repeated year after year. If I were a large business, especially in other sectors, I would want to hear that clearly from both major parties to give confidence in future investment.

 

[96tommy]

What have we done to deserve such a vile PM?

 

[Cowley]

What have we done to deserve such a vile PM?

Voted for him (although maybe not you or me).

 

[Howardh]

Voted for him (although maybe not you or me).

If he resigned the public would have no say over the next PM. We vote for our constituency MP who represents a party with a known (at the time) leader, so I suppose we (I didn't, obvs!) did vote for Johnson in a roundabout way to start with; but once installed the public have almost no say whatsoever about getting rid or who follows.

I suppose if you join the Tory Party as a member you get to whittle their candidates down to two. I'm not sure about how the Labour leader is elected, how much power the members have?

Im my humble if a PM resigns or is forced out, there should be a general election immediately; with the exception if a PM dies in office.

 

[nw1]

Purely responding to the thread title, right about now?

https://assets.publishing.service.g...RMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf

Re the May 2020 event, "The largest group pictured was made up of the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, "

Not sure if this is new, but if it came out before, I missed it.

Fond of chastising people with the term "Covidiot" and patronising people with terms like "we should all follow the science", if I remember right. Well he evidently didn't. Hancock is the real Covidiot.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Im my humble if a PM resigns or is forced out, there should be a general election immediately; with the exception if a PM dies in office.

Where did you carry out your researches into a matter that you so describe above....and how far back into history did you go?

What do you mean by "Im my humble" above?

 

[Howardh]

Where did you carry out your researches into a matter that you so describe above....and how far back into history did you go?

What do you mean by "Im my humble" above?

Misspelling - In my humble (opinion). Not sure I understand your former point? We elect a constituency MP, the parties elect their leaders with a mixture of party members, their MP's and in Labour's case, union votes. We don't directly elect an PM, and certainly not if there's a change of PM between elections. Is there something incorrect there?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As it has been confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary is the line manager of the civil servants in the two Downing Street premises and as such, the person in charge of both senior and junior civil servants there, noting the recent revelations that it was the civil servants who appear to have orchestrated the said gatherings and formed the vast majority of the attendees present, can I please ask if the Grey report that was discussed in the House of Commons made any reference to that particular aspect in the discussions today. Apologies for asking, but the current ill-health affecting me means that I cannot go through long reports.

Misspelling - In my humble (opinion). Not sure I understand your former point? We elect a constituency MP, the parties elect their leaders with a mixture of party members, their MP's and in Labour's case, union votes. We don't directly elect an PM, and certainly not if there's a change of PM between elections. Is there something incorrect there?

What I queried was your assertion that if a Prime Minister should resign other than for the exceptions that you quoted, that there should be a General Election immediately and I was wondering where such a precedent had already occurred in past times.

 

[Howardh]

As it has been confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary is the line manager of the civil servants in the two Downing Street premises and as such, the person in charge of both senior and junior civil servants there, noting the recent revelations that it was the civil servants who appear to have orchestrated the said gatherings and formed the vast majority of the attendees present, can I please ask if the Grey report that was discussed in the House of Commons made any reference to that particular aspect in the discussions today. Apologies for asking, but the current ill-health affecting me means that I cannot go through long reports.


What I queried was your assertion that if a Prime Minister should resign other than for the exceptions that you quoted, that there should be a General Election immediately and I was wondering where such a precedent had already occurred in past times.

Recently May was replaced by Johnson. To be fair there was a general election reasonably shortly afterwards but the election was called by Johnson/Parliament and not because there had been a change of leadership. Also Brown took over from Blair and two years passed before the 2010 general election. Inbetween we had the global monetry crisis.

 

[jfollows]

I can't watch him in the press conference, his demeanour insults and upsets me, but so far he seem to have:

• Not shown very much contrition at all in the House of Commons (last time he was much better, but spoiled it when he laughed it all off in the "private" 1922 meeting later).
• Apologised, kind-of, for what "we" did and not for what "I" did.
• Made jokes about Kier Starmer and curry, in an attempt to do him down. Bad tactic before. Dominic Raab winced very badly when he did.
• When asked whether he lied, he won't answer the question.
• When asked whether he tried to kill the report before it was published, he won't answer the question.
• He seems to have a useful side-topic in mis-treatment of Downing Street staff, which he can say he's doing something about and changing the way it operates etc.

Nothing really surprising I guess.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unfortunately, my current affliction (had a TIA last week) means that I am finding a great deal of difficulty in researching matters, so I ask anyone on this website what is the salary of:-
A)...The Prime Minister
B)...The Cabinet Secretary

 

[WelshBluebird]

How many times will we as a country let him claim he is taking responsibility but actually doing literally nothing? Stepping down would be taking responsibility. Admitted that you were wrong and lied about it would be taking responsibility. Just saying "I am taking responsibility" means nothing without the actions to support it.

 

[Howardh]

How many times will we as a country let him claim he is taking responsibility but actually doing literally nothing? Stepping down would be taking responsibility. Admitted that you were wrong and lied about it would be taking responsibility. Just saying "I am taking responsibility" means nothing without the actions to support it.

He's definitely taking something out of all of us, but it ain't "responsibility".

I just want a journo or member of the public to ask, directly, why they couldn't have a wake after a funeral...as in a leaving party that Johnson attended?