Sunak due to announce new financial measures, at 11am today.

“The country won't recover until we have a person of honour at the top of government. And people who say its all in the past are playing into the hands of someone who is undermining democracy in this country.”

We will have to do the best we can because BJ isn’t likely to be going anywhere soon, it’s only his own party that can depose him and there is no widespread move to do that.
Despite wishful thinking by the media he will probably muddle through to the next election.

Yes somerset10, you're right. Many people do disagree with you.

I'll not be letting it go, not because of lost relatives or any of that. But because our Prime Minister thinks he is above the law, thinks that rules don't apply to him and thinks we are all here just to give him a nice life. How can you actually write, the Cabinet broke the law, but so did thousands of others. Are you happy to let us be governed by law breakers?

The country won't recover until we have a person of honour at the top of government. And people who say its all in the past are playing into the hands of someone who is undermining democracy in this country.

I know many people will disagree with me, but it really is time Partygate is put to rest. There are more important things facing the country just now which can't be dealt with properly if everyone keeps going on and on about past events.
Yes, the Cabinet broke the law, but so did thousands of others. Are they being talked about ?
Before anyone says that they lost relatives, my mom died as well, alone and only had family at her funeral.
What is done is done. Let it go and let the country try to recover

DaisyAnne

Chestnut

LizzieDrip

A lot of people will blow a cash payment on booze, cigarettes etc

What an incredibly patronising statement Urmstongran.

Maybe so, but probably true. No-one is saying everyone will do this, but 'a lot of people' is probably accurate. Unless you have proof it is not true you cannot argue with this statement. Some people cannot manage money and spend it as soon as it comes their way. It's no good pretending otherwise.

This is "othering" by the anti-democratic. The poor must be feckless, incompetent and inclined to poor decision making. In this case, it seems to be by the far-right. We've seen it done in the past where people, once grouped in this way, have been driven out or treated as Communist China treats the Uyghurs or Germany treated the Jews, Communists, etc. In these countries, the gullible public followed the propaganda, thus making the dreadful decisions of government, easier. I have to believe that this is not deliberate, but then it wasn't in other cases, was it?

Yes and it needs to stop

OakDryad

There was a July 2021 report that Rough could be repurposed for a role in net zero ambition if 1.6bn of government funding materialised. However (and I may be wrong) I don't think it feature in the White Paper on the UK Hydrogen Strategy published a month later. I'll check it out tomorrow.

Rough gas storage had a capacity of 9 days supply for the UK so would have been of limited use for current high prices. It was closed for safely concerns, the cost of updating the facility was not deemed worthwhile.

I’m sure the site could be used for any Hydrogen development, although because of the safety issues with Hydrogen in the gas grid its going to be decades before that happens.

How and when these payments will be made:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10857277/What-does-Rishi-Sunaks-15bn-cost-living-giveaway-mean-you.html

Thank you

There was a July 2021 report that Rough could be repurposed for a role in net zero ambition if 1.6bn of government funding materialised. However (and I may be wrong) I don't think it feature in the White Paper on the UK Hydrogen Strategy published a month later. I'll check it out tomorrow.

This problem stretches across so many different areas OldDryad. Although I don't know anything about this storage, it makes a great deal of sense that we should have kept it going while replacing it, if necessary.

During this long period of Conservative government we have seen them leave the roof "unfixed". Now the rain is pouring down on us all. We can all see where damage was done and just how much work it will take to make up for their short-sighted, selfish none-decision making.

The comments about cigarettes and alcohol rather reminds me of the two elderly woman sitting in front of me at a carol concert a few years ago. One said she had spent her winter fuel allowance on buying more Christmas presents for her grandchildren. The other said she was putting hers towards another cruise. I wonder if critics of the "feckless" would put these two grans in the same category?

Urmstongran

Some households will blow this money, paid direct into their banks.

That £650 should have been a further discount on fuel bills.
A lot of people will blow a cash payment on booze, cigarettes etc.

These support payments are not just because energy will be outside the budget of many but food will be too. Perhaps you would like to identify those on GN you believe will turn to "booze, cigarettes, etc." if allowed to receive this money directly into their bank, to help themselves and their families.

This money will make better decisions possible for people, including some members of GN, who will otherwise struggle. However, I imagine most will not tell you this as it puts them in the way of similar insulting comments.

Some may have heard Rachel Reeves response today to Sunaks' speeech. She mentioned the UK's lack of gas storage as contributing to the current crisis and she's right.

We would be in a far better position if the now disgraced Michael Fallon (another sexually incontinent minister) had not agreed to the closure of the Rough storage facility which was owned owned by Centrica, the parent company of British Gas. It provided 70% of the UK gas storage capacity for more than 30 years before it was shut in 2017 following a government decision not to subsidise the costly maintenance and upgrades needed to keep the site going. Fallon argued it would save would save the UK £750m over 10 years which looks piddly compare to the scale of problem now.

Currently there is a surfeit of gas flowing into the UK. Ample supply should mean less volatility in the market and lower prices but because we now have insufficient storage, guess what? The excess is being used to produce electricity ... for France.

AGAA4

Germanshepherdsmum

Their employers were getting it.

GSM could you explain please?
My DS worked throughout the pandemic for the civil service. My DD worked as a teacher. Both wfh. Are you saying their employers were getting furlough for them?

The Civil Service did not get paid for anybody working at home. People working at home were working, so were paid as normal.

Chestnut

LizzieDrip

A lot of people will blow a cash payment on booze, cigarettes etc

What an incredibly patronising statement Urmstongran.

Maybe so, but probably true. No-one is saying everyone will do this, but 'a lot of people' is probably accurate. Unless you have proof it is not true you cannot argue with this statement. Some people cannot manage money and spend it as soon as it comes their way. It's no good pretending otherwise.

This is "othering" by the anti-democratic. The poor must be feckless, incompetent and inclined to poor decision making. In this case, it seems to be by the far-right. We've seen it done in the past where people, once grouped in this way, have been driven out or treated as Communist China treats the Uyghurs or Germany treated the Jews, Communists, etc. In these countries, the gullible public followed the propaganda, thus making the dreadful decisions of government, easier. I have to believe that this is not deliberate, but then it wasn't in other cases, was it?

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

For the way it was handled ‘Oldnproud’.

At the time, many people (including foreign observers) praised Gordon Brown for the way the crisis was handled.

Gordon Brown wasn’t flaky either, unlike some.

Germanshepherdsmum

For the way it was handled ‘Oldnproud’.

At the time, many people (including foreign observers) praised Gordon Brown for the way the crisis was handled.

Germanshepherdsmum

For the way it was handled ‘Oldnproud’.

Just like the criticism of the current Government, then - for the way it has handled things.

For the way it was handled ‘Oldnproud’.

The £700 which I will receive and is not means-tested will go into my bank account and be used to pay for food, fuel, gas and electricity will be very welcome.

Germanshepherdsmum

Rameses

Germanshepherdsmum

Some people are never satisfied. They complain nothing’s being done. They complain when something is done.

No, they complain (because they realise) that there was never any need for us to have been in the situation we are in in the first place, with a competent government and prime minister.

How exactly could any UK government have prevented the current global problems which are affecting us? Food shortages and prices? Fuel prices? Pray tell.

And how could any UK government have prevented the global financial crisis that struck towards the end of Labour's last period in Government? Yet the Tories and the right-wing media still regularly berate Labour for it!

Unless you have proof it is not true you cannot argue with this statement

I beg to differ Chestnut. Unless there is evidence to show that the statement is true, I can freely argue with it. The poster provided no evidence to support the statement, therefore I disagree with her opinion.

germanshepherdsmum yes he did have some zoom work, but nothing like his previous work consequently he received payments amounting to several thousand £ under the self employment package offered. I’m not making this up - I only mentioned it as a foil to the poster who claimed the poor would blow all their extra benefits on booze and fags - it’s not just the poor who spend their taxpayers payouts on things not everyone would approve of.

Gosh. I wonder what tv programs you watch GSM. I haven't seen anyone smoking while talking about their life on tv for about 15 years.

At £10 a packet no-one short of money should even be considering smoking! If they smoked 20 a day that would be £70 a week. 10 a day would be £35 a week, that's over £150 a month. Just for 10 smokes a day. No-one on benefits or low wages could possibly afford that and they certainly couldn't complain about their energy bills.

And some people have very different priorities. I've lost count of the number of people I've seen on tv who say how little money they have to pay the bills whilst smoking a fag. I know it's very difficult to give up, having done it myself a long while ago, but whilst they might stop you feeling so hungry they're an expensive way of doing so and do nothing to help you or your family. I really have no sympathy for those who prioritise fags. Nowadays they're an expensive 'luxury'.