Truss’ Energy Bailout

When are we going to hear more about these very important plans? It’s all been lost in the news about the Queen.

Banning fracking was a good idea. Rescinding is a mistake.

Baggs

Banning fracking was short termist. Not increasing nuclear power was short termist. Reducing gas storage capacity was short termist. There need not have been a UK energy crisis at all if government had done its job properly.

I second that.

Interesting post Dinahmo. Thank you.

I am hoping they will come up with a scheme for rural dwellers with oil tanks etc.
I worry a lot about one of my daughters and her little family living on a modest income.

We (and I suspect Truss) have no idea yet on how this £150bn is going to be funded. I suspect her inclination is to fund it by taxing the consumer further down the line, but that remains to be seen. Perhaps she will change her mind if it is seen as a deeply unpopular policy by the paying public when the profiteering by the energy companies is so outrageously enormous.

But Truss doesn’t like solar power does she.

A caller on James O'B today explained that he had been involved in raising capital for a American companies to fund exploration of fracking opportunities in Europe. Apparently Poland was found to be the best place because of its geology and relatively sparse population. Trials were carried out, but eventually the major companies the major companies pulled out - for a variety of reasons I think - too expensive, too difficult.

What Truss with her silly plans is forgetting - fracking uses a huge amount of water and the UK has just been through a period of drought and water shortages. Where does she think the water come from. My understanding is that the water, once used will be polluted.

Finally, a news item yesterday from a solar farm on the Euston Hall Estate, in Suffolk. Apparently it took 4 months to build the farm and was not hugely expensive.

As Keir Starmer and Ed Davey have pointed out the energy producers, like Shell and BP, are due to make at least £170 billion (not million, billion) in excess profits due to Putin's war.

The leaders of these companies have indicated that a windfall tax would have absolutely no effect on their investment budget

So why on earth do we not ask them, to pay for our huge energy bills by means of a windfall tax?

Is it because Truss is financed and backed by vested interests?

Surely not. We all hoped that we had moved on from the disastrous era of Tory corruption under Johnson.

Not insisting on insulating homes properly is short termism.

A lot of families will end up paying more, or less, than the £2,500 figure in the headlines. The cap is what an household consuming the average amount of energy on a dual-fuel tariff would pay. Larger households and those with bigger or poorly insulated properties consume more energy and could end up paying perhaps £3,400 or more. So running swimming pools or leaving lights on all day will still result in bills higher than average.

Banning fracking was short termist. Not increasing nuclear power was short termist. Reducing gas storage capacity was short termist. There need not have been a UK energy crisis at all if government had done its job properly.

No help for me that I can discern - I have a gas tank.

Does this mean that those who run swimming pools and jacuzzis can continue to fund their use?

As they say - a good day to bury bad news?

I think they know the Tories will lose the next election, so the plan is to run up a huge debt, and then barrack from the sidelines when an opposition government has no option but to raise taxes to pay for it. The thought process is that will guarantee they are only out of office for one term.

I'm confused how we will pay for it as she wants to cut taxes too. Public services in many areas have been significantly cut.