Soon all our problems will be gone because rain, real or metaphorical, is coming

 

While the nation waits for rain and thunderstorms, here’s a question: when is an ‘extension of tax on oil and gas giants’ not a windfall tax? I’ll explain that below. Meanwhile, a quick gallop through the dead-tree press shows another mixed bag, with appeals to Truss or Sunak to freeze the cruel energy bills, with warnings that there may not be sufficient places at Uni for all and with The Star telling it’s readers not to wash windows nor flush the loos while ‘water firms pay £3bn to investors’ – I assume they mean shareholders. See all the MSM in its gory glory here.

Now then, about that ‘non-windfall-tax’ tax. It’s about Starmer’s proposal and comes in a speech he’ll give today. The BBC reports: 

“Labour has called for an extension of the tax on oil and gas companies to fund a freeze in the energy price cap. The cap – the maximum amount suppliers can charge for average use – is forecast to hit £3,582 in October and £4,266 in January. Leader Sir Keir Starmer said if Labour’s plan was adopted, the typical family would see savings of £1,000.” (link)

I dunno about you, but my first thought was that paying £1,000 less of those £4,000 we’re told we might have to pay from next year means we’ll still pay £3,000. That’s not precisely a reason to be happy. It gets more convoluted:

“Unveiling his party’s £29bn plan to help with soaring energy costs, Sir Keir said Labour “wouldn’t let people pay a penny more” on their winter fuel bills. He said freezing the price cap at the current level of £1,971 a year for the typical household would bring inflation down by 4%.” (link)

Ah – so this plan means a price freeze at the level of the projected autumn bills! That’s a saving of more than £1,000 – but perhaps Starmer thinks we’re too stupid to understand big numbers. Next, this is how Starmer sez this ‘freeze’ will be paid for:

“If it was in power, Labour said it would pay for the plans through increased tax revenues from oil and gas producers. In May, the government announced a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas company profits of 25%, which it expects would raise about £5bn in its first year. But Labour said it would close an “absurd loophole”, by backdating the start date to January and accounting for higher oil and gas prices, which it said would raise £8bn.” (link)

Oh – there is already a ‘windfall tax’ in place? Funny, I wasn’t aware of this – must’ve been reading the wrong papers, mustn’t I! Perhaps there was something else going on in May? Hm …

Note that Starmer would back-date his windfall tax: something I believe is illegal. It shows though what might be in store for all of us should Labor get into No 10: backdating of taxes. Once a precedent is established, there’ll always be ‘reasons’ to apply this to other parts of the economy, in order to help ‘teh poor’. There’s more:

“Sir Keir said his party would also reduce energy demand and lower bills in the longer term by insulating 19 million homes over the next decade. The plans also include a pledge to secure the country’s energy supply to protect against future shocks, including by doubling onshore and offshore wind capacity and increasing production of solar, tidal, hydrogen and nuclear power.” (link)

Isn’t that nice: more ‘major home insulation’ – paid for how? Government using back-taxes? Perhaps ‘smart meters’ will be made a legal requirement as well? And the green crappery will still be with us – never mind that we’ll not be able to pay for this either, nor that we will be unable to import the vital components.

Under the headline “Keir Starmer plan for energy price freeze based on ‘illusion’”, the DT has an article quoting the Institute for Fiscal Studies, criticising Starmer’s proposals. For once, I scrolled all the way down and found a ‘description of how Labour ‘understands’ the economy:

“Labour said £14 billion would come from dropping the £400 energy rebate and abandoning pledges by Ms Truss to halt the “green levy” on fuel bills, or scrapping VAT on domestic fuel bills which Mr Sunak has promised. And by keeping inflation down to nine per cent rather than the forecast 13 per cent, it would reduce the Government’s debt interest payments by another £7 billion.” (paywalled link)

Now isn’t that interesting: scrap the £400 ‘rebate’ because that’ll save money needed to finance the general price cap, and keep the ‘green surcharge’ and VAT on energy bills as proposed by Truss and Sunak. It’s ‘left pocket – right pocket’ financing, and it’ll squeeze middle incomes because they’re the ‘new rich’. The Guardian calls this proposal ‘reinforced windfall tax’, and as ever so predictable criticises the Truss and sunak proposals because ‘they’re not fully funded’ (link). 

Do the report-writers in the MSM not notice that Starmer ain’t in No 10, that there’s no GE as of yet, and that his proposals, financial and economical fairytales as they are, are simply clickbait, to show the Nation that Labour is ‘doing something’, or would do something if only …? 

Does Labour, Starmer and his admirers in the MSM actually understand what is driving this current inflation? The BBC of course knows that

“The main reason for high inflation is soaring energy bills, driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, although households have also been hit by higher petrol, diesel and food costs.” (link).

It’s “because: Putin!”, not because of sanctions which is crashing economies worldwide, alright? So no need to blame the energy firms who’ve not increased their strategic reserves. Let’s also not mention the water companies whose shameless profiteering has exacerbated the drought which is going to mean higher food prices. I wait with bated breath for Starmer’s proposals to ‘keep food prices down’ … back-tax farmers, perhaps? Meanwhile you might like to check out Sir John Redwood’s reaction to the Starmer proposals (link).

I leave you with three, yes: three reports found in The Times. One is about a proposal by Mr Eustice, to build a ‘national grid’ of pipelines from the ‘wet North West’ to fill reservoirs in the SE (link, paywalled). Words fail me! Since we’ll pay for this, one way another, why not build more reservoirs instead, as proposed for years? Did Mr Eustice want to signal hat he’s still alive? Never mind – this is Defra, known for all sorts of daft, green ideas. 

The other report is about Surrey residents having had their supply “cut off on one of the hottest days of the year.” – how perfectly horrible! No, this was not a punitive method because they are all ‘rich’ and have private swimming pools coming out of their ears. It was Thames Water had problems “during pipe replacements at Netley Mill water treatment works.” (link, paywalled). I suggest these problems would’ve happened anyway and that without the drought we’d not seen a report in the national press.

The final ‘report’ however takes the biccie. Under the headline “How to protect gardens in the downpour” (link, paywalled) readers are given ‘helpful advice’, such as moving planter where the can get more rain, and perhaps divert downpipes to water the lawn. At least gardeners are not told to ‘protect’ their plants with a brollie!

I think that we all need protection – not from the elements like ‘killer heat’ or ‘killer rains’,  but from politicians and MSM editors who come up with fairytale economies or daft proposals so they can look good in the MSM. Here’s hoping that we’ll not end up as “Venezuela-on-Thames” which Labour and the MSM seem to crave.



 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email