UK Conservative Party Leadership Election

Sunak has been guiding the ship, now the ship is heading towards rapids, his claim as best man to avert disaster is highly questionable.

Her idea is [I'm guessing] that families with £30 extra income a week will help prevent a deeper recession. But if it gets spent on amazon it will do bugger all to protect the high street jobs.

It is a very difficult situation, rising energy costs and interest rates etc... I still don't feel a groundswell reaction from the public of looking towards labour to solve the problems.

When you put the TV on, with all the adverts for electric cars and £800 mobile phones etc...you wouldn't think there was a big recession looming.

Yes but the people getting the £30 per week are already financially comfortable, so their discretionary spending is already largely unchanged, the people who really need extra money, the lower income households and the 'squeezed middle' will be getting somewhere between ONE POUND and maybe a tenner extra in their pockets every week, which won't even remotely touch the sides of their increased energy bills.

Truss's plan is economically incoherent, it's completely unfunded, it will be inflationary, and it won't help the people who actually need help.
 
Yes but the people getting the £30 per week are already financially comfortable, so their discretionary spending is already largely unchanged, the people who really need extra money, the lower income households and the 'squeezed middle' will be getting somewhere between ONE POUND and maybe a tenner extra in their pockets every week, which won't even remotely touch the sides of their increased energy bills.

Truss's plan is economically incoherent, it's completely unfunded, it will be inflationary, and it won't help the people who actually need help.
The poor are very bad at spending money though. The better-off build extensions, buy new cars etc. which keeps people employed and holidays which helps the air and travel industry for example. The economy does extend beyond Farm Foods and the local corner shops for fags and scratchcards mate! Apparently the healthiest generation ever were those brought up in rationing between 1940-55 where there was little obesity, the main issue undermining the whole NHS nowadays. I think rationing luxury 'bad foods' via pricing is the natural result of this inflationary period and could benefit the nation in the long term. Similarly, if you're cold, shivering and trying to maintain an adequate body temperature uses far more calories than sitting in warm houses in winter when there's nothing active to do. Those Antarctic explorers apparently use 6-10,000 calories a day! High fuel prices stop expensive car journeys and lead to increased usage of public transport and car sharing or even walking.

So we may be on the cusp of a major emissions reduction towards our Green ambitions and a healthier population. It's not all doom and gloom if you really think about it.
 
The poor are very bad at spending money though. The better-off build extensions, buy new cars etc. which keeps people employed and holidays which helps the air and travel industry for example. The economy does extend beyond Farm Foods and the local corner shops for fags and scratchcards mate! Apparently the healthiest generation ever were those brought up in rationing between 1940-55 where there was little obesity, the main issue undermining the whole NHS nowadays. I think rationing luxury 'bad foods' via pricing is the natural result of this inflationary period and could benefit the nation in the long term. Similarly, if you're cold, shivering and trying to maintain an adequate body temperature uses far more calories than sitting in warm houses in winter when there's nothing active to do. Those Antarctic explorers apparently use 6-10,000 calories a day! High fuel prices stop expensive car journeys and lead to increased usage of public transport and car sharing or even walking.

So we may be on the cusp of a major emissions reduction towards our Green ambitions and a healthier population. It's not all doom and gloom if you really think about it.

Well that's quite the wall of poundshop Daily Mail bile and nonsense, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your tongue is in cheek somewhat.

It's also incorrect, the lower down the income scale you get, the more advantageous for the economy it is to distribute extra money. In simple terms, if you give a low income household £1000, they will go out and spend it into the economy pretty much immediately, if you give a moderately wealthy household £1000, they will put it into the bank, which generates zero economic activity.

This is, incidentally, largely the same phenomenon we saw with the £450bn of Covid money that the government printed, which ultimately ended up in the pockets of the wealthy, who pumped it into assets and investments, or simply trousered it - which is why we've seen insane inflation in things like house prices.

You might think the poor are 'bad' at spending money, but they do at least spend it, and generate economic activity.
 
Well this energy price cap is an absolute joke. Our direct debit tariff pretty much doubled overnight a few months back to over £200 a month, although we are now over £300 in credit, as not using heating nor no need for the tumble dryer etc.

However, they reckon it should go up to over £500 a month. Get the %&&^%^ out!

That is no way happening. Christmas present lists already organised, thermal vests, long johns and hot water bottles all round!

Seriously whoever becomes PM and whichever party is in power, the govt needs to sort this out. If it mean nationalising all power companies, then DO IT!!!

Low income earners are going to be screwed. People paying rent and mortgages will soon see their monthly energy bills almost eclipsing their rent and mortgage payments. Lots of people are going to end up on the streets, the debt collection industry are going to be on a recruitment drive. This will further fuel inflation as well.

Worrying times!
 
Never give them access to your bank account because they love to jack up the ol' direct debits. The days of a jolly 50 quid per fuel to keep nice and toasty are long gone. No smart meters either. Monthly manual reads, pay at the last possible moment, or even a bit late late, only for what's actually been used

I've basically self-disconnected from gas by investing in electric and normal blankets plus some thick jumpers. So will not be running the gas central heating at all this winter. I have a tiny home office on the 3rd floor of the house, which tends to warm over time from the desktop PC being on in there, so will retreat to that and the bedroom during the cold months. Get some role playing games on the go. Hot water is again from gas, but just will do without and have hot electric showers instead of baths. Living room will be out of bounds as it's got a conservatory on it and gets very cold if the heating isn't on.

I could just about afford to pay 500 or 600 quid a month out on energy but I can think of a lot better uses for it and just cannot stand the thought of being ripped off so badly.

Expect meter tampering and bypassing by the desperate to increase massively - probably with a few fatal explosions as a result.
 
Yeah, you make a very good point in regards to paying by DD, which we currently do. But should they jack up the monthly amount they want, that DD is getting cancelled. I am also in the 'Anti' smart meter camp. Don't like the idea of anyone being able to control as and when we can use energy - More than happy to provide meter readings ourselves and let their employee in to verify said readings.

Currently looking into getting a log burner for our dining room / kitchen to replace the electric fire we have in place. Looking at around 2 grand to do this, which will include relining the chimney flu.

Already made a conscious decision to be very anal with regards the use of the gas central heating over the autumn and winter months and also restrict unless absolutely necessary the clothes dryer.

If we can heat one room well, with a log burner, that will suffice and logs wholesale will cost a lot lot less. Other than that, everyone can get used to wearing extra layers LOL

I am not going to be anal about the electric though. Just be sensible, ie turn off lights when not in a room etc.

The problem is though are these standing charges. You could use very very little energy be it gas or electric, but these energy companies can still bend you over with the daily standing charge, which I have seen is very high for some!

Hence I believe if the government do not do something, such as actually fix the price cap so it is actually capped and / or nationalise these energy companies, then give it to Feb, when people actually start dying, there will be massive civil disobedience that we have not seen in the UK for generations.

It will make the early 80's riots in the likes of Brixton, Toxteth and St Pauls seem like a cake walk IMO

Think of the Poll Tax riots on steroids, but in every town up and down the country.
 
This is like something out of a Chris Morris show ala The Day Today, but in some places, supermarkets are putting security tags on blocks of cheese!!!
cheesetags.webp


If people can't afford to feed themselves, they will end up trying to shoplift, if they can't rob from the shops due to security measures in place, then no doubt if desperate enough will try and break into homes to get food.

This is 21st Century Britain we are living in. I dare say the majority of us here on Casinomeister will be fine, but can you imagine being on the bread line, on universal credit, already struggling and then being destroyed by the massive hike in the cost of gas and electric.

This is all going to come to a head I fear! Not scaremongering, but where we are heading, it could make the 70's seem like a picnic
 
I've been moved over to OVO from SSE, so have taken an interest in looking at the rates and charges properly, iirc the standing charge for the electricity is nearly 50p a day, so add on top the gas [assuming it's the same logic they use] of also 50p and that's about £360 a year for a f***ing standing charge!

There are almost 28 million households in the UK [plus business premises but leaving them out for the moment] so basic maths = £10 billion on standing charges, before we even use any energy!

Edit: Webzcas beat me to it!
 
Last edited:
Log burners are an ecological disaster. The toxins they belch out are terrible. Alas, the greenwash seems to be dominant right now regarding those.

I suggest a cheaper alternative is buy very hot chillies. The chemical in those triggers a slight sense of well being and makes the body generate heat. Another way of cheap savings is duct-taping thick polythene over window recesses which is remarkably effective as triple glazing, efficiency wise. Use the winter sunshine (Scotland excepted) if you have south or west-facing patio doors, hang damp washing on an airer in front of them. Buy an air fryer for 50%+ savings on cooking small-medium portions, it will also fan the heat into the kitchen and not waste heat energy out of a flue like gas cooking does. Change to 100% LED lighting (did that years ago) and when washing up, do NOT tip the warm dirty water down the drain until it's cold, why pay to heat the rats up?

Washing machines, wait until one weekend day and say do 3 big washes, whites, colours and darks alll in one go - use the 'speed perfect' programme. TIP - washing machines use electric to heat the water up, which is 4x per kwh dearer than gas, so if you have a combi boiler and want to do say a 40c wash, 2-3 bowls of hot tap water manually tipped in via the powder drawer will save at least half the cycle cost in money terms as the wash will no use electric then aside from the drum turning and spinning/draining. I've checked this on a smart meter and a 25p wash is literally 8-9p.

Failing the above, go and stay in your Florida holiday home for the colder months.
 
Log burners are an ecological disaster. The toxins they belch out are terrible. Alas, the greenwash seems to be dominant right now regarding those.
LOL - I do not give a rats &*&&. It is because of the likes of Greta Thunberg and the eco warriors that in part we are facing these insurmountable energy bills. Getting rid of the green levies is another thing that needs to be done, as well as a country harness our natural resources. We have enough coal ( Yes reopen the mines! ), oil and gas to be energy independent.

It is the likes of China that need to be reined in, as they produce far far far more emissions than little old Britain. Net Zero is another govt target that should also be kicked into touch.
 
Standing charges are indeed where it's at. And what started as a relatively small surcharge to cover suppliers' overheads, and to stop many companies from effectively going under, has now turned into a stick with which to beat customers with.

So ultimately it matters little as to how many jumpers Cameron tells pensioners to put on or how little gas is consumed by conscientious spendthrifts, everyone will be hit the same.

When politicians assert their promise to freeze caps, it's actually the standing charge they pledge to stabilize, and as we're seeing now, those have risen into ridiculous and unsustainable levels, before one's even drawn the energy for usage, at circa 50p each for electricity and gas, with electricity having had the biggest increase. No more 7p a day, no siree!

We still use PAYG, despite companies' best efforts to cajole and even threaten smart meter installation as a must (it isn't, incidentally), and companies will do their utmost to tie consumers into contracts of sorts, often over many years, as many companies in many sectors now try to do.

Being beholden to smart meters and quarterly estimates is now proving to be somewhat 'problematic' as a result, with many customers even being offered 'take it or leave it' fixed prices to combat these increases, though often at double or triple their current costs. What's one to do....

Yet ultimately there's no escaping it, we're all going to foot the bill eventually, irrespective of what methods used, and sooner or later something has to give. And I'd suspect once the Government fully realizes this, we may see their hand forced. Not for a while yet, mind :cool:
 
I just thought of something - about 4 years ago when I locked into a 3-year fixed price deal with Shell Energy, there was actually a 10-year fix on offer from at least one company, but it was 20-25% dearer IIRC. I wonder how many people took it and are now laughing....

I don't think many did, if they had you'd hear about energy companies offering 2k or something to buy them out of it... :laugh:
 
I just thought of something - about 4 years ago when I locked into a 3-year fixed price deal with Shell Energy, there was actually a 10-year fix on offer from at least one company, but it was 20-25% dearer IIRC. I wonder how many people took it and are now laughing....

I'm sure they would have welshed on it by going bust, as did many suppliers.
 
I think it was one of the bigger ones IIRC.

I had a brilliant fixed deal with Green Energy when the bills started escalating last year. About 15 months left to run. They bust out and I got thrown to the lions on a crap British Gas variable tariff, at a time when no fixed deals were to be had. Apparently a contract is only a contract when it's in Companies' favour.

Long story short, I owed them over 100 quid, which I felt not obliged to pay given that they hadn't honoured the deal and had put me to a lot of inconvenience. Received 3 template debt collection letters from some agency and never heard another peep - written off as part of the liquidation, no doubt.

* I don't advocate or recommend this method of dealing with energy bills.
 
Home insulation in the UK was going very well until the Tories decided to massively cut its funding.

Still, saved a few quid for them to bung to their mates I suppose.

But more importantly, CaN A w0mAn HaV3 A P3ni5? We're lucky that Sunak and Truss are focusing on the big issues of the day.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


1661353498896.webp


1661353273358.webp
 
I've had another look at my OVO energy tariffs, the gas is 7.36p kwh which still seems pretty reasonable, looking at an old bill from 2016 and the Gas unit price was 4.95p kwh. So a £100 bill would roughly be £150 now. [I guess it will go up again, so might be nearer 10p kwh come winter.]

Obviously a boiler on for enough hrs to heat a home will burn through more energy than a kettle during a day, so the nature of the beast is different.

But the killer is the electric, the cost has doubled from 15p to 30p kwh, so four times as expensive as gas.

The worry is will the prices ever go back down to reasonable levels.
 
Last edited:
I've had another look at my OVO energy tariffs, the gas is 7.36p kwh which still seems pretty reasonable, looking at an old bill from 2016 and the Gas unit price was 4.95p kwh. So a £100 bill would roughly be £150 now. [I guess it will go up again, so might be nearer 10p kwh come winter.]

Obviously a boiler on for enough hrs to heat a home will burn through more energy than a kettle during a day, so the nature of the beast is different.

But the killer is the electric, the cost has doubled from 15p to 30p kwh, so four times as expensive as gas.

The worry is will the prices ever go back down to reasonable levels.
Doubt it - people start to view prices as the norm: eg, someone today said : oh, the price of petrol is ONLY 1.67 at the Gulf. Now, memory might be playing tricks on me but i vaguely remember, not so long ago, outrage/Chopley level insurrection when the prices went north of one quid.
 
A disgusting comment from Truss, when asked if the President of France is 'friend or foe', Truss replies 'The jury is out'. France is one of the world's major democracies, one of our stoutest allies (including militarily), and Macron is its president - you just don't say shit like, effectively, 'Oh yeah. he might be a foe'.

You know who's a foe? Putin. That's the kind of world leader who we reserve the use of the word 'foe' for.

The more the public see of Truss, the less they like her (entirely understandably).

The poisonous morally delinquent nonsense she's coming out with might play well with Tory party members, but outside of that demographic, she's fucked.

 
A disgusting comment from Truss, when asked if the President of France is 'friend or foe', Truss replies 'The jury is out'. France is one of the world's major democracies, one of our stoutest allies (including militarily), and Macron is its president - you just don't say shit like, effectively, 'Oh yeah. he might be a foe'.

You know who's a foe? Putin. That's the kind of world leader who we reserve the use of the word 'foe' for.

The more the public see of Truss, the less they like her (entirely understandably).

The poisonous morally delinquent nonsense she's coming out with might play well with Tory party members, but outside of that demographic, she's fucked.



About half the french people don't see him as 'friend'

If she'd been asked 'france, friend or foe' I'm sure she would have said they're a long-standing ally.

I'm betting a lot of the discussion, previous to this point in the video, is regarding the economic migrants crossing the sea from france, so that's what this question is in relation to.

They're currently allowing thousands of foreign people [95% young men] to camp on their coast in preparation of crossing the channel in dingies etc..
 
Last edited:
The New Statesman have knocked up a graphic showing how people will fare under the latest energy price rises (now confirmed up another 80% this morning), as you can see, Labour's plans put far and away the most money back in people's pockets, Sunak is a fairly lame second but Truss is a remote third. As per my post the other day, her tax cutting plans benefit the wealthiest most, and by a long, long way.

I've circled in green where Tory party members - (note that Tory party members and people who voted Tory in 2019 are two very, very different things) - are most likely to be.

EDIT - And yes I know Labour's plans are a very blunt instrument (hence the wealthy doing well out of them too), the key thing with their plan is it can be enacted quickly and it does at least help the people who need it most, with a minimum of delay. (And with medium-longer term changes to the tax system it can be taken back from the wealthy anyway.)

1661499489880.jpeg
 
Last edited:
About half the french people don't see him as 'friend'

If she'd been asked 'france, friend or foe' I'm sure she would have said they're a long-standing ally.

I'm betting a lot of the discussion, previous to this point in the video, is regarding the economic migrants crossing the sea from france, so that's what this question is in relation to.

They're currently allowing thousands of foreign people [95% young men] camp on their coast in preparation of crossing the channel in dingies etc..

It doesn't matter, when it comes to the leader of a major world democracy and a powerful ally, your starting position is 'friend' and you then move onto whatever reservations or points of difference you might have.

As for the dinghies, why should the French protect our borders for us? We left the EU and took back control, remember? They gave us considerably more help when we were still an EU member, this is borne out by the fact that migrants coming across the channel are now at record numbers.
 
The New Statesman have knocked up a graphic showing how people will fare under the latest energy price rises (now confirmed up another 80% this morning), as you can see, Labour's plans put far and away the most money back in people's pockets, Sunak is a fairly lame second but Truss is a remote third. As per my post the other day, her tax cutting plans benefit the wealthiest most, and by a long, long way.

I've circled in green where Tory party members - (note that Tory party members and people who voted Tory in 2019 are two very, very different things) - are most likely to be.

EDIT - And yes I know Labour's plans are a very blunt instrument (hence the wealthy doing well out of them too), the key thing with their plan is it can be enacted quickly and it does at least help the people who need it most, with a minimum of delay. (And with medium-longer term changes to the tax system it can be taken back from the wealthy anyway.)

View attachment 171600
Well it's in the interest of the nation overall to keep the better-off healthy and alive. They will most likely be working or spending more money than average persons which stimulates the economy, more likely to have educated and healthier children who will be less of a burden on the NHS for obesity-related illnesses and of course be more likely to achieve better academically thus contributing hugely in future. They are less likely to be involved in crime too and far less likely to be state-dependent at any stage in their lives. You don't waste valuable water on dried out brown plants, do you? but the ones that will yield crops.

As for this myth about 'taxing the rich' being the panacea for any cost crisis a government faces, well let's expose it for the bollocks it is.

Only a small minority would be liable to pay these new kleptocratic taxes, Ken Clarke was respected and indeed alluded to 'diminishing returns' back in the 1980's whereby cutting taxes actually increased returns as people were less likely to use legal avoidance or offshore their money. If you ever get to the point where more than 50% of any Pound of income is paid then you enter morally unjustifiable territory of the socialist klepto-state like Sweden for example.

Show me two things: firstly, who you consider to be 'wealthy' and the critera for that assumption (i.e. income level, earnings) and secondly, based on the first figures, how that small group of people could ever pick up the bill for what amounts to a colossal spending splurge in the tens of billions?

I'm afraid that's another of your illogical Corbum-ite socialist fantasies which has no credible fiscal foundation and figures applied, a soundbite plucked from the marxist's book of wet dream essays to raise the hopes of the ignorant.
 
It doesn't matter, when it comes to the leader of a major world democracy and a powerful ally, your starting position is 'friend' and you then move onto whatever reservations or points of difference you might have.

As for the dinghies, why should the French protect our borders for us? We left the EU and took back control, remember? They gave us considerably more help when we were still an EU member, this is borne out by the fact that migrants coming across the channel are now at record numbers.

But that's why what they had been discussing in relation to france matters, they didn't just throw in a question on macron out of nowhere, the long form is really 'on the basis of and in relation to the migrant problem, is macron a friend or foe' She replied the jury is out, what else could she say, be dishonest to her party members and say he's a friend when it is clearly in doubt.

Really it's a bad question from julia hartley brewer, she could've phrased it in many different ways, e.g. 'is france doing enough to prevent these crossings?'

However France is taking the piss, and they don't respect weakness, which is what's been going on imo.
 
Right so here's a direct timestamped link to the 'friend or foe' question, it's in the quickfire questions round and ISN'T part of the debate about immigration.

Moreover, when she was talking about immigration earlier, she was speaking in defence of the Rwanda policy, and being able to overrule the ECHR on the issue, not criticising France or Macron.

A such it was essentially a contextless question where she was simply asked 'Is the President of France a friend or foe' and the next Prime Minister of the UK chose to say 'The jury is out'.

Anyway, it's all here, watch it for yourself and see.

 
Last edited:
There is a simple solution to solve the rising cost of energy here in the UK and it is right under our collective noses. The North Sea fields, provide enough gas and oil to enable the UK to be self sufficient. However, we allow the energy companies ie Shell, BP et al to sell what they get on the open international markets, thus generating a massive profit for said oil firms.

We then need to visit the international energy markets and pay the exorbitant costs, to import gas and oil to ensure our domestic market has enough. Hence the end user is being hit by these massive rises, as we are at the mercy of the wholesale price on the international market.

What the new Prime Minister needs to do is tell the energy companies who are operating these UK fields in the North Sea to not sell any gas and oil to the international market. But instead provide it to our UK domestic market with a substantial reduction in cost compared to that on the international marketplace.

Failure for them to do this, then the government needs to nationalise any company that goes against the UK interests.

By doing the above, not only do we ensure we are protected from the cost of oil and gas on the international market, but we also become attractive for foreign investment and foreign firms wanting to relocate to the UK, with comparatively lower energy costs.

This is a no brainer. If the government could afford all those furlough payments and beforehand bail out the banks back in 2008, they can also stamp out the energy crisis, which if not tackled soon, could see major civil disobedience up and down the country, when people start dying!
 
Right so here's a direct timestamped link to the 'friend or foe' question, it's in the quickfire questions round and ISN'T part of the debate about immigration.

Moreover, when she was talking about immigration earlier, she was speaking in defence of the Rwanda policy, and being able to overrule the ECHR on the issue, not criticising France or Macron.

A such it was essentially a contextless question where she was simply asked 'Is the President of France a friend or foe' and the next Prime Minister of the UK chose to say 'The jury is out'.

Anyway, it's all here, watch it for yourself and see.



Well that is a bit surprising, and disappointing that the 'migrant boat crisis' wasn't even raised as a topic apart from the rwanda angle, so the macron thing was just something JHB pulled out apropos of nothing specific.

There goes my predictive political punditry!

Didn't watch it all, but in parts rishi came across alright, however dedicated tory members want to believe in the party and the soundbites, so it's not exactly a hard audience.
 
To be fair, IMO she answered correctly with regards Macron. The jury is indeed out.

That's fine, we can say stuff like that here on CM when doing our armchair punditry, but when you're almost certainly going to be the next Prime Minister of the UK and you're asked a question like that, there's a responsibility to come up with a more appropriate answer. Thugs like Putin thrive on conflict between Western powers so when the UK's Prime Minister in waiting is asked 'So is one of your major allies actually a friend or a foe?' you don't say, 'Hmmm, not sure really'.
 
The problem is and why I believe she answered correctly, the likes of Macron's apparent appeasement of Putin at the beginning of the war in Ukraine especially and also how the French government have acted over channel crossings and the migrant crisis, they ( as in Macron's French Govt ) are not exactly acting 'friendly'. Hence she told it how it is when answering the question put to her.
 
There is a simple solution to solve the rising cost of energy here in the UK and it is right under our collective noses. The North Sea fields, provide enough gas and oil to enable the UK to be self sufficient. However, we allow the energy companies ie Shell, BP et al to sell what they get on the open international markets, thus generating a massive profit for said oil firms.

We then need to visit the international energy markets and pay the exorbitant costs, to import gas and oil to ensure our domestic market has enough. Hence the end user is being hit by these massive rises, as we are at the mercy of the wholesale price on the international market.

What the new Prime Minister needs to do is tell the energy companies who are operating these UK fields in the North Sea to not sell any gas and oil to the international market. But instead provide it to our UK domestic market with a substantial reduction in cost compared to that on the international marketplace.

Failure for them to do this, then the government needs to nationalise any company that goes against the UK interests.

By doing the above, not only do we ensure we are protected from the cost of oil and gas on the international market, but we also become attractive for foreign investment and foreign firms wanting to relocate to the UK, with comparatively lower energy costs.

This is a no brainer. If the government could afford all those furlough payments and beforehand bail out the banks back in 2008, they can also stamp out the energy crisis, which if not tackled soon, could see major civil disobedience up and down the country, when people start dying!

The thing is, taking this argument to its logical conclusion, they should just be nationalised full stop - we always end up in this position, a corporatisation of profits, and a nationalisation of failure/losses (see the banking crisis), or in this case, the threat of nationalisation to literally stop people fucking freezing to death or civil unrest - because privatised corporations only exist to make money. (Not that either Truss or Sunak will go down that route.)

I'm not against companies selling us stuff and making profits, the government shouldn't be in the business of selling us fast food, for example, so let Maccy's and Burger King and KFC and all the rest of it duke it out in a competitive marketplace.

But when it comes to the absolute essentials of life, there shouldn't be anyone making money out of that, what are you going to do as a consumer, exercise your right not to drink water, or exercise your right not to heat your home? Any money that these utility companies make, should be put back in the form of reinvestment - for the benefit of the population of the UK, not billionaire hedge funds on the other side of the world.
 
The problem is and why I believe she answered correctly, the likes of Macron's apparent appeasement of Putin at the beginning of the war in Ukraine especially and also how the French government have acted over channel crossings and the migrant crisis, they ( as in Macron's French Govt ) are not exactly acting 'friendly'. Hence she told it how it is when answering the question put to her.

I don't think calling it 'appeasement' is fair, by all accounts he genuinely believed he could do something to avert a war, rather misguided perhaps, but not appeasement.

I don't get the channel crossing/migrant thing at all, we left the EU and all of its agreements/institutions, why should France help us out with our borders, it's literally fuck all to do with them now, as we're not an EU member.

Back to Truss and 'friend or foe', as a former Conservative minister put it:

1661509866635.png
 
I don't think calling it 'appeasement' is fair, by all accounts he genuinely believed he could do something to avert a war, rather misguided perhaps, but not appeasement.

I don't get the channel crossing/migrant thing at all, we left the EU and all of its agreements/institutions, why should France help us out with our borders, it's literally fuck all to do with them now, as we're not an EU member.
Completely misguided and compared to the UK, France have hardly sent anything to Ukraine in terms of military support.

As for the channel crossing/migrant thing as you call it. Actually this has nothing to do with Brexit at all. Regards the migrants, they should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach - Is France not safe?

As for the lack of staff at the ferry terminals, again France showing that they are not necessarily our friends. They caused the issue and the subsequent stacking.
 
Macron displaying a hell of a lot more class than Truss could ever muster, and he makes some very important points too.

(In fairness to Sunak, when asked the same 'friend or foe' question in the hustings earlier on in the evening, immediately replied 'friend'.)

 
Last edited:
Completely misguided and compared to the UK, France have hardly sent anything to Ukraine in terms of military support.

As for the channel crossing/migrant thing as you call it. Actually this has nothing to do with Brexit at all. Regards the migrants, they should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach - Is France not safe?

As for the lack of staff at the ferry terminals, again France showing that they are not necessarily our friends. They caused the issue and the subsequent stacking.

Well did we take back control or not? If the migrants are 'nothing to do with Brexit' then what was the point? It's like over in the Brexit thread, folks insisting that anything and everything is 'nothing to do with Brexit', it's simultaneously the most seismic and yet pointless event in history ever, since according to those who advocated for it, it's incapable of making any change to anything.

The French didn't fuck up the ferry terminals deliberately, they were short of staff on the first day due to circumstances beyond their control, AND had all the new Brexit bureaucracy to deal with as well, which slowed things down. By all accounts they managed to get on top of things within a few days.

I've answered the question about why migrants try to get to the UK before, as you asked it over in the Brexit thread, and I replied.
 
This the same French Govt led by Macron who threatened to cut off energy supplies to the Channel Islands over the fishing dispute......

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Maybe she could have been a tad more diplomatic with her language possibly, but yes, Liz Truss is correct in what she said, "The jury is out."

Screenshot 2022-08-26 at 15.47.30.webp
 
Oh and to add, regardless what you think of Johnson or the Tory Party ( caveat I am no fan ), on Ukraine the UK Govt and Johnson have led the way, hence why he is loved in Ukraine.

Unlike Macron, ( who only got re-elected due to running off against that horrible woman Le Pen being even more unpopular than him in France ) who has not learnt from history that the road of appeasement is not the path to take when dealing with autocracies and dictators like Putin.

Where is France in this list??

Screenshot 2022-08-26 at 15.54.15.webp
 
But when it comes to the absolute essentials of life, there shouldn't be anyone making money out of that, what are you going to do as a consumer, exercise your right not to drink water, or exercise your right not to heat your home? Any money that these utility companies make, should be put back in the form of reinvestment - for the benefit of the population of the UK, not billionaire hedge funds on the other side of the world.

So to what extreme do you take that? Should supermarkets and food producers not make any profit because food is essential too?
 
Macron displaying a hell of a lot more class than Truss could ever muster, and he makes some very important points too.

(In fairness to Sunak, when asked the same 'friend or foe' question in the hustings earlier on in the evening, immediately replied 'friend'.)


Are you by any chance the 2022 version of Lord Haw Haw?
 
So to what extreme do you take that? Should supermarkets and food producers not make any profit because food is essential too?

The supermarket sector is very competitive, it's a decent example of a free market economy working well. (Despite what some folks might think, I'm not in favour of destroying all capitalist enterprise and having everything controlled by some sort of central Communist diktat.)

However the utility sector is the precise opposite of that. In the case of the privatised water companies you literally have no choice, each company has its own monopoly that was handed to it on a platter by Thatcher's government, and consumers have precisely zero choice as to who they 'shop' with. The private interests make out like bandits, they don't invest back into infrastructure, billions are creamed off in shareholder dividends and director salaries, and they turn the UK's beaches into shit-filled swamps that are dangerous to humans.

Each privatised utility is a variation on that theme, in some sectors there is a vague pretence of competition, such as in the energy sector, but these are all essentially just 'resellers' with no infrastructure and no capital, which is why the government has had to take on the responsibility for so many of them as they all go bankrupt, because an energy business can't 'fail' in the sense of thousands of people literally just have the lights go out. (Once again, corporatisation of profits, nationalisation of losses/subsidies/rescue packages.)

Rail privatisation, also an unmitigated disaster, enacted purely on ideological grounds and the UK government of all colours ever since it was shit out has pumped billions of pounds of subsidies into them every single year since, which again, is just creamed off as profits and dividends.



 
Yes, I know the story. His crime wasn't being a fascist but toadying up to Britain's enemies and dictators, like Corbyn and his cronies. A mild parallel to someone once resident in the UK, who moves outside the UK and while there fires back constant vitriol and propaganda against the country he fled.
 
Yes, I know the story. His crime wasn't being a fascist but toadying up to Britain's enemies and dictators, like Corbyn and his cronies. A mild parallel to someone once resident in the UK, who moves outside the UK and while there fires back constant vitriol and propaganda against the country he fled.

A 'mild parallel' to this guy, you're really going to run with this?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


1661542126940.png
 
A 'mild parallel' to this guy, you're really going to run with this?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


View attachment 171625
I thought being a fellow PE subscriber you'd get the joke. Like I got yours about UK pensioners being 'racist'. :thumbsup:

P.S.

In fact, let me make myself clear here as you have deliberately (as your moniker suggests you will) taken exaggerated umbrage over the comparison.

As you well know, I refer to his (Lord Haw-Haw's) constant propaganda campaign against the nation and society he once lived in. I'm not suggesting you are a Nazi or should be hung for treason as you damn well know, but your righteous indignation, even if unjustified in the context of my comment's meaning, is noted. :)

In fact, I have been a little unfair in my comparison as he was actually paid to try and undermine the confidence and mood of the UK, whereas you like to provide that service gratis.

Now it gets a little tiresome when someone who left the UK and benefits from a tax haven populated in part by not a few rich and wealthy, doesn't vote in UK elections, didn't vote in the Brexit referendum and pays 10% income tax as opposed to the 20% lowest rate for us, contantly lectures us all about where we went wrong. This usually takes the form of material and Tweets from other like-minded people. Of course you are entitled to your opinions as we all are but it comes across as constant sniping and not a little hypocritical - like being told by the multi-millionaires in Blair's cabinet what's good for us all.


That aside, you insulted millions of pensioners here, many of whom have served this country well in various careers, by insinuating they were all 'racists' which most of us just treated as a lazy and false stereotype.

Yes, we are in the shit right now for a variety of reasons and we need to have some good ideas quite quickly. Many people are nervous, me included. Yet you just pick and pick at old scabs and constantly tell us, usually with the benefit of hindsight, where you and your social media acolytes think we went wrong. Perhaps looking ahead rather than at a past we cannot change may be more constructive.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top