4 ms·

Yeah, it's just that people are unlikely to realise this because the British press has spent the last year or so lying about this for both partisan reasons (mos

by makomk 4y ago

Yeah, it's just that people are unlikely to realise this because the British press has spent the last year or so lying about this for both partisan reasons (most of them hate the party currently in power) and environmentalist ones (there's been a huge campaign to block new fossil fuel production in order to fight global warming which relies on convincing people that the only reason governments haven't done so is because it'd hurt fossil fuel company profits - admitting that it'd actually increase their profits and make ordinary people worse off would get in the way of that).

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
That's curious as most of the British press fawn over the Tories and come up with excuses for their various failures. Even just recently, the Telegraph published Liz Truss' explanation of why her ideas weren't the problem with her failed premiership - she blames the left-wing economic establishment. Also, it doesn't explain why the plan to help with elevated fuel prices involved borrowing money to pay the companies rather than trying to windfall tax them so that their profits aren't so excessive.
- makomk 4y ago
  Actually, in a way it does. The idea that the reason the government's plan required borrowing so much money was because they'd refused to impose a proper windfall tax was a lie by the opposition Labour party (that was repeated unchallenged by most of the media, including the BBC): https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-keeps-repeating-misleading-claim-on-energy-windfall-tax https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-kee... There's just not enough money there. The actual reason that Labour's plan could be mostly funded from windfall taxes was much more cynical: it ended in April back when energy prices were expected to be even higher then, whilst the government plan extended for two years and cost substantially more as a result. It couldn't just be extended for longer either because a huge chunk of the money came from backdating windfall taxes as far as possible. This worked for Labour because the media was willing to ignore what this would actually mean for consumers - something they didn't do when the Government inevitably caved and did the same thing themselves. Of course, now that April is coming Rachel Reeves and other Labour politicians are claiming that the reason energy prices are going up is because the Tories refused to impose proper windfall taxes and of course Labour would keep the cap past then, and the BBC and others are repeating that claim unchallenged too.
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    The issue is more likely to do with the investment "loophole" > Companies can reduce their payments if they invest capital in new production in the North Sea – covering everything from hiring vessels and rigs to engineering contracts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/02/why-is-shells-uk-windfall-tax-payment-so-low https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/02/why-is-shel... I don't know why you're going on about Labour - how are they relevant?
    - makomk 4y ago
      The whole idea that this could all have been funded from a windfall tax pretty much came from Labour, which is how they're relevant. Also, the fact check I linked to specifically addressed the "investment loophole" - closing it's not even close to enough money. The claim that the price cap could be funded from windfall taxes really, heavily relied on Labour playing sneaky tricks with ending their proposed price cap in April and the media not calling them out on it (along with other dodgy accounting tricks, and more recently them pointing to Shell's global profits as proof the existing windfall tax isn't aggressive enough even though they only proposed to tax UK profits).
      - tankenmate 4y ago
        This is nothing to do with Labour; they haven't been in government for well over a decade. The first UK windfall tax targeted on oil companies was in 1983 under Thatcher / Lord Lawson; so the party that recommends it depends more on what oil prices are doing rather than whether there is a left or right government in power. Whether it will or won't cover all the costs doesn't really matter either, because everyone knows what the quality of economic forecasts are variable at best; you can't control an economy (no matter how much some Communist governments tried), but you can influence it with taxes / subsidies. What matters is the benefits and costs. The main issue is that the UK economy is suffering under supply side inflation, and the usual tricks don't really work too well. The BoE have to be careful as during stagflation rate changes have larger than normal impacts; far more of a tightrope that usual. The UK has several supply side issues beyond other countries; no natural gas reserves (they were sold by the Tories / Osborne), and Brexit. And so the UK is in a tighter strait jacket; and the current results / forecasts for the GDP reflect that.

by makomk 4y ago

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

That's curious as most of the British press fawn over the Tories and come up with excuses for their various failures. Even just recently, the Telegraph published Liz Truss' explanation of why her ideas weren't the problem with her failed premiership - she blames the left-wing economic establishment. Also, it doesn't explain why the plan to help with elevated fuel prices involved borrowing money to pay the companies rather than trying to windfall tax them so that their profits aren't so excessive.

makomk 4y ago
Actually, in a way it does. The idea that the reason the government's plan required borrowing so much money was because they'd refused to impose a proper windfall tax was a lie by the opposition Labour party (that was repeated unchallenged by most of the media, including the BBC): https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-keeps-repeating-misleading-claim-on-energy-windfall-tax https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-kee... There's just not enough money there. The actual reason that Labour's plan could be mostly funded from windfall taxes was much more cynical: it ended in April back when energy prices were expected to be even higher then, whilst the government plan extended for two years and cost substantially more as a result. It couldn't just be extended for longer either because a huge chunk of the money came from backdating windfall taxes as far as possible. This worked for Labour because the media was willing to ignore what this would actually mean for consumers - something they didn't do when the Government inevitably caved and did the same thing themselves. Of course, now that April is coming Rachel Reeves and other Labour politicians are claiming that the reason energy prices are going up is because the Tories refused to impose proper windfall taxes and of course Labour would keep the cap past then, and the BBC and others are repeating that claim unchallenged too.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  The issue is more likely to do with the investment "loophole" > Companies can reduce their payments if they invest capital in new production in the North Sea – covering everything from hiring vessels and rigs to engineering contracts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/02/why-is-shells-uk-windfall-tax-payment-so-low https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/02/why-is-shel... I don't know why you're going on about Labour - how are they relevant?
  - makomk 4y ago
    The whole idea that this could all have been funded from a windfall tax pretty much came from Labour, which is how they're relevant. Also, the fact check I linked to specifically addressed the "investment loophole" - closing it's not even close to enough money. The claim that the price cap could be funded from windfall taxes really, heavily relied on Labour playing sneaky tricks with ending their proposed price cap in April and the media not calling them out on it (along with other dodgy accounting tricks, and more recently them pointing to Shell's global profits as proof the existing windfall tax isn't aggressive enough even though they only proposed to tax UK profits).
    - tankenmate 4y ago
      This is nothing to do with Labour; they haven't been in government for well over a decade. The first UK windfall tax targeted on oil companies was in 1983 under Thatcher / Lord Lawson; so the party that recommends it depends more on what oil prices are doing rather than whether there is a left or right government in power. Whether it will or won't cover all the costs doesn't really matter either, because everyone knows what the quality of economic forecasts are variable at best; you can't control an economy (no matter how much some Communist governments tried), but you can influence it with taxes / subsidies. What matters is the benefits and costs. The main issue is that the UK economy is suffering under supply side inflation, and the usual tricks don't really work too well. The BoE have to be careful as during stagflation rate changes have larger than normal impacts; far more of a tightrope that usual. The UK has several supply side issues beyond other countries; no natural gas reserves (they were sold by the Tories / Osborne), and Brexit. And so the UK is in a tighter strait jacket; and the current results / forecasts for the GDP reflect that.