r/unitedkingdom May 27 '23

Energy companies making 'war profits' - Reeves

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65730950
516 Upvotes

286

u/Bokbreath May 27 '23

40yrs of neo-liberal deregulation and here we sit. Being told by the BoE to get used to a lower standard of living because nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of companies making as much profit as they can.

66

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

In my view, what BoE is doing is criminal and hopefully the next government will launch a national inquiry into their conduct.

53

u/ne6c May 27 '23

BoE is not the problem - the problem is 10s of agencies like OFGEM, that employ 1000s of people yet are firmly on the side of the energy companies instead of the consumer.

5

u/Suitable-Length4255 May 27 '23

What is criminal about what they are doing?

39

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

Raise interest rates to further constrain the supply side, exacerbating inflation, and ensuring that people struggle to pay off their mortgages. This situation conveniently readies properties to be snapped up by banks that have expressed an intention to enter the rental market. Moreover, there's the decimation of small businesses. Large corporations can either purchase promising ones at a bargain or simply benefit from reduced competition. All of this appears to be a carefully orchestrated effort to aid the rich and widen the wealth gap, conveniently shrouded under the guise of combating inflation.

13

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23 edited May 27 '23

Raising rates constrains the demand and reduces inflation. Contrary to Reddit belief, house prices don't control the economy and the BoE doesn't care about them. That being said, house repossessions are still relatively very low.

All of this appears to be a carefully orchestrated effort to aid the rich and widen the wealth gap,

Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory.

Stop spreading misinformation.

11

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

Well, well, pulling out the "conspiracy theory" card - a timeless tactic when the discussion turns a bit too real. Now, let me be clear: what I'm offering here is not a conspiracy theory, but a rather candid analysis of the situation we find ourselves in. We are currently grappling with supply-side inflation, a situation where boosting interest rates exacerbates, rather than resolves the issue (and you can see that - core inflation has gone up despite massive interest rate hikes). It’s akin to trying to put out a forest fire with a flamethrower. I'm sorry, but this isn’t a Hollywood heist plot, it’s just basic economics.

As for the Bank of England's claimed indifference to house prices, that's honestly worth a chuckle. Sure, housing prices may not be "officially" under their purview, but come on, are we really going to turn a blind eye to the glaring connection here? Interest rates and mortgages are two sides of the same coin. A shift in one directly impacts the other and, subsequently, the housing market. And who stands to benefit the most from this? You guessed it – the banks that are itching to dip their toes into the residential market, looking to snap up properties by the thousands - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/19/lloyds-plans-big-move-into-uk-rental-market-with-50000-homes

7

u/qrcodetensile May 27 '23

a timeless tactic when the discussion turns a bit too real.

It's pulled out when the commenter in question has a history of making up wild bullshit. Ie they're a conspiracy theorist.

7

u/machone_1 May 27 '23

the banks that are itching to dip their toes into the residential market, looking to snap up properties by the thousands

and to end run around buy-to-let landlords by cutting them out of being middlemen

4

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

and to end run around buy-to-let landlords by cutting them out of being middlemen

Cutting out "middlemen" landlords in favour of banks running the residential property market, you say? We're talking about institutions whose mix with social responsibility is about as harmonious as oil and water. Now, without the convenient scapegoat of the small landlord to point fingers at, one wonders who will bear the brunt of complaints when the usual rental hiccups emerge. Banks, with their substantial resources and "too big to fail" status, could exert significant influence over the housing market - not necessarily in the public interest, and it's worth questioning how this might impact tenants' rights and experiences. Once we cross that line, there is unlikely going to be a come back.

2

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23

We are currently grappling with supply-side inflation, a situation where boosting interest rates exacerbates, rather than resolves the issue

That's not true at all.

and you can see that - core inflation has gone up despite massive interest rate hikes

Cherry picking data much? You'll see that actual inflation has fallen.

it’s just basic economics.

Yes and basic economics says that higher interest rates reduce inflation regardless of the type of shock causing it.

"officially"

And hence me calling you a conspiracy theorist.

-1

u/Ollotopus May 27 '23

Point of order:

A way to combat forest fires would be controlled use of flame throwers to create fire breaks ahead of the blaze.

Now, I'm not saying this is what's happening. It's your analogy.

Just pointing out that it doesn't necessarily do for you as you think it does.

0

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

I appreciate your engagement with my analogy. However, my intention was not to suggest that the Bank of England's actions are analogous to a deliberate and controlled measure like creating fire breaks, but rather to a counterproductive use of fire.

While creating fire breaks can indeed help combat forest fires, it's a very precise and controlled activity, carried out by experts with deep understanding of the behaviour of fire and forests, and performed in very specific conditions.

In contrast, what we're seeing from the Bank of England is not so much the creation of fire breaks, but rather the indiscriminate use of a flamethrower that ends up causing more fires, rather than preventing them.

Your point is well taken, but I believe the essence of my analogy stands: the Bank of England's actions are exacerbating the problem rather than resolving it. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

2

u/cass1o May 27 '23

Raising rates constrains the demand and reduces inflation.

"Constrains the demand on food" is a euphemism for "people will just have to go without eating".

-1

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23

Goods other than food exist. The effect is obviously more substantial on non-essentials and capital goods.

0

u/ShapelyTapir May 27 '23

Food's a bit important to many, though.

-1

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Nicola_Botgeon Scotland | South Queensferry Police Station May 27 '23

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

-1

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/RawLizard May 27 '23

Raising interest rates at a time when inflation is supply side driven is one. It's not working, the problem isn't the economy running too hot. All raising interest rates is doing is adding pain on top of pain to the public.

4

u/machone_1 May 27 '23

All raising interest rates is doing is adding pain on top of pain to the public.

and lots of businesses are going to fail because there's naff all left for the public's discretionary spending, let alone essentials

-1

u/Thestilence May 27 '23

Following their mandate to control inflation. Which is outrageous apparently. The whole point of Brown de-politicising the BoE (one of the few good things he did), was so they could do unpopular things.

3

u/SMURGwastaken Somerset May 27 '23

I don't understand the concept of central banks

-2

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

Is that a quote from Bailey?

0

u/SMURGwastaken Somerset May 27 '23

Bailey is just doing the job he's been given with the tools he's been provided with to do it.

We can argue whether the task he's been given is reasonable given the tools he's been given to do it with, but criticising him for doing a bad job isn't really fair in this context and he can't be breaking the law when he's doing as directed by the lawmakers.

-2

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

The "Bailey is just a pawn in the game" defence. Brilliant! Let's just absolve him of any responsibility, shall we? Because all he's done, poor chap, is fuel a supply-side inflation wildfire with high-interest kerosene. Absolutely top-notch crisis management there.

I'm not accusing the man of outright illegality. Heavens, no! Merely of playing a lamentable game of economic chess, and do spare me the "tools at his disposal" narrative. He's not a tradesman given a butter knife to cut through steel. He's a central bank governor overseeing the economy. There's a smidgen of decision-making latitude there, don't you think?

With inflation spiralling, largely owing to energy costs, perhaps it's time we recognised this isn't just about the central bank's monetary policy toolbox. It's not just about knowing when to use the hammer or the screwdriver. It's about realising when you're out of your depth and passing the baton to someone more qualified. In this case, that would be the government, capable of stepping in and addressing the energy crisis head-on.

Or maybe we should continue to stand by and watch as Bailey hammers away at our economy. Now there's a spectacle worthy of a popcorn tub! (if you can still afford it)

0

u/SMURGwastaken Somerset May 27 '23

Bailey is legally charged with keeping inflation at 2-3%. The tool with which he is expected to achieve this is controlling the base rate of interest.

Contrary to your ridiculous claims, Bailey would actually be opening himself up to legal action if he didn't raise rates. Further, it's not even a decision he takes personally, it's decided by a committee who vote on it.

-1

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

Legally charged, yes. Armed with a single tool - interest rates, correct. But let's not pretend that using this tool is as simple as adjusting a thermostat to regulate a room's temperature. Raising interest rates is not a one-size-fits-all remedy for every inflation scenario.

What we're dealing with here is supply-side inflation. Simply cranking up interest rates in this situation is akin to putting on a sweater to combat a fever. It might make you feel better temporarily, but it doesn't address the root cause of the problem.

And yes, Bailey doesn't unilaterally decide on interest rates - it's a committee decision. But as Governor, he's the captain of the ship, and the direction it takes under his leadership is very much under his purview. Legal obligations aside, the question here is whether the committee's decision to raise interest rates under the current circumstances is the appropriate one.

When it comes to addressing the main driver of inflation we're experiencing - energy costs - monetary policy is not the most effective tool. This is a problem that requires governmental intervention to address head-on, not just tinkering with interest rates.

But hey, let's keep applauding as Bailey and the committee, in their infinite wisdom, keep raising rates. Meanwhile, inflation continues to spiral and the economy is stuck playing catch-up.

0

u/SMURGwastaken Somerset May 27 '23

I'm not applauding Bailey, simply accepting that in the circumstances there isn't anything else he can do.

0

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

Yes, there is. He could have said that on this occasion this type of inflation is not in BoE remit to tackle, instead of they went gung-ho and tanked the economy. That's reckless, irresponsible and plainly stupid, but works well for the rich.

→ More replies

1

u/cass1o May 27 '23 edited May 27 '23

The problem is that the BoE only has one lever. They can only raise rates to achieve their goal. There needs to be some other tools used to tackle the issue.

1

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

Yes, supply-side inflation generally falls within the government's remit - there isn't much the BoE can do, and increasing interest rates only exacerbates the problem. A competent Governor would have said exactly that and passed the baton to Sunak.

6

u/CoffeeandHaze Down South Funk May 27 '23

I dunno, sounds a bit woke and socialist if you ask me.

4

u/Milfoy May 27 '23 edited May 28 '23

Sorry, but you heard the right wing media take on what he said. What he actually said is that we all, including companies, need to accept we are poorer.

He was asking companies to accept that they too need to accept that they should be taking less profit. If they did that the pain would be much more fairly shared - in fact for many companies it wouldn't be painful in any real sense at all.

Edit : typo and to state that the last sentence of the previous paragraph was me not him. See follow on post for source info.

1

u/Bokbreath May 27 '23

Got a source ?

3

u/Milfoy May 28 '23 edited May 28 '23

"there had been a reluctance by workers and companies in Britain to accept that they were poorer, primarily as a result of Europe's energy shock"

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/beyond_unprecedented_3/5/

Seems this is the original podcast. I heard a clip on the bbc when it first all kicked off and it was very clear to me he was talking about companies too. Of course the more right wing media immediately were very selective in what they reported.

Addendum : This is the original podcast, but better to listen to it on a podcast player of your choice. Key section is from around 5mins to 15mins. Confirmed - The media have done a hatchet job on him. He's absolutely definitely calling out businesses as well, in fact everyone.

74

u/ahorne155 May 27 '23

This shouldn't be a windfall tax as the government will just squander the money, they should be made to pay it directly back to their customers through gas and electricity bill refunds..oil is a bit more tricky but I'm sure something could be worked out at the pump such as a 10% discount card for everyone and government monitoring of price fixing at the forecourt..

29

u/davus_maximus May 27 '23

Now that's a strong argument. I also believe that the government would piss any tax windfall up the wall. Just look at the PPE scandal. They'd never spend it for public benefit. I'd suggest the money be ringfenced for infrastructure and road building, but I don't think they get especially good deals from the contractors, either. Your suggestion is probably a huge economic win, almost like the US stimulus cheques.

7

u/DavIantt May 27 '23

That is a good idea, the people know their situation as well as anyone else. All the parties have a track record of spaffing money up the wall when in government (including devolved assemblies).

2

u/durand101 Free movement is a human right May 28 '23

The profits are being made primarily by BP and Shell, not our utilities (except where they own gas production or certain generators). The only way to get money back to consumers is by taxing O&G companies or generation companies.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '23

Most of those profits are on fossil fuels extracted and sold internationally as stated in the article.

If the UK taxes those profits, these companies are going to look at rebasing their registered offices elsewhere.

The countries in which these fossil fuels are extracted will be happy to support that, and there is nothing we can do about it, short of invading these countries.

It's also not clear on principles of fairness why e.g. profit on gas extracted from Norway that it is then sold in France should be seized by the British government to pay for domestic expenditure.

3

u/vishbar Hampshire May 27 '23

This is silly and doesn’t make any sense, though. The upstream producers are making profit, not the downstream suppliers.

12

u/Gameplan492 May 27 '23

So regulate the upstream suppliers then. The idea that this is an argument against taking any action is ridiculous.

-5

u/amegaproxy May 27 '23

So regulate the upstream suppliers then.

How do you propose doing this?

10

u/TeflonBoy May 27 '23

Maybe we copy one of the other many successful countries that have actually managed to help their citizens through proper regulation. People ask on Reddit ‘hOw wOUld yOu ProPoSE..’ in bad faith.

-2

u/amegaproxy May 27 '23

Or rather it's a response to other redditors who go "It's simple just regulate it" or other completely empty statements which mean nothing. Which country would you copy and what rules?

3

u/TeflonBoy May 27 '23

Tax or nationalise. Wealth tax on top. Slap in some pay ratio caps too. Nationalise a downstream too. Go even further and create a basic national energy tariff to customers. Make it progressively more expensive, so your penalised for using more but first bit is subsidised for the poor and the less fortunate and protects them from predatory energy companies. Regulate prices at the pump too.

1

u/amegaproxy May 27 '23

Tax or nationalise.

We already tax them to the tune of 75%. There is absolutely no budgetary way we could nationalise Shell or BP.

Wealth tax on top

I assume we're moving away from just energy now? Not sure what this means.

Nationalise a downstream too

A supplier presumably? I don't see what the point really is here - they are just beholden buying energy at the same prices as the others. There is minimal profit to be saved by government activity in this sector.

Make it progressively more expensive

This is actually the only thing I agree with, the cap introduced should have been flexibly looser the more you used, so essentials were covered but if you're trying to heat a swimming pool it's far more punitive. This would have had better demand reduction instead of marketing it like personal bills were prevented from going over X amount.

Regulate prices at the pump too.

Another empty statement unfortunately.

4

u/TeflonBoy May 27 '23

So you think we are taxing them enough if they announce 40 billion in profit?

3

u/amegaproxy May 27 '23

You said "tax them" which we are doing, heavily. If you want to have a discussion on whether it's "enough" that's a separate conversation. We can start by determining how much of that 40billion you're quoting is actually made in the UK that we would have jurisdiction over, presumably you have the number to hand?

→ More replies

3

u/vishbar Hampshire May 27 '23

They operate all over the world. They aren’t making £40 billion from their UK operations alone.

→ More replies

0

u/Thestilence May 27 '23

Invade Qatar.

32

u/Cynical_Classicist May 27 '23

It really is a disgrace how much price gouging energy companies are engaging in.

6

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

It's way more complicated than this, the suppliers we buy our energy from are barely making a profit, some are losing money and a few already went bankrupt and forced consumers to switch supplier.

Big actual producers i.e. Shell who pump the oil are raking it in but that isn't because they have devised some machiavellian scheme, they don't control the price at all. They just sell at the global rate and physically cannot force down market prices because they have already maxxed out their production at the behest of western governments.

It's the likes of Russia or Saudi Arabia that want the price of oil to rise, not western companies or governments.

Labour is just muddying the water and playing silly political games by saying "energy companies" so they can say they really meant e.g. Shell who has no power over the market in the first place.

8

u/Gameplan492 May 27 '23

Classic Tory argument. "This isn't profiteering by the rich, you just don't get it. It's complicated"

It's not complicated at all. Record profits, record shareholder payouts, record bills. It's classic greed enabled by politicians who benefit from it.

5

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

Weirdly enough the geopolitics of energy, which underpin basically every industry in existence are in fact complicated.

If you can reduce a topic this vast to “no it’s easy just do x” you’re probably wrong or being mislead by someone else.

2

u/TheMachineTookShape May 27 '23

For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat—and wrong.

3

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23

Classic Reddit argument. "I don't understand basic economics, but it's actually really simple"

It's not really simple at all. Companies haven't just woken up one day and decided to be "greedy", they've always been profit maximising, market conditions (lack of competition from Russia) have changed which is why profits increased. So it's not just "classic greed" it's just how markets work and have always worked.

Conversely, is wanting lower prices not just "consumer greed"? Both parties (consumers and producers) want to maximise their portion of surplus.

5

u/rv_14 May 27 '23

Because “greed” from consumers barely getting by is as bad as greed from trillion pound companies…

0

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23

Neither is "bad", it's just human behaviour.

3

u/rv_14 May 27 '23

The companies’ greed is objectively worse though - they stand to turn billions into more billions, no one’s survival or choice to eat that evening depends on their greed.

0

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23

You mean subjectively.

But at the end of the day, it's a pointless morality argument - you can't stop people acting in their own self-interest.

3

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

[deleted]

2

u/cass1o May 27 '23

You mean subjectively.

In the sense all morals are subjective but we are measuring against generally accepted morals that normal people have.

1

u/cass1o May 27 '23

Greed from companies is really bad. Unless you have zero morals that align with normal people.

-1

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23

Most people outside the Reddit communists don't have any issues with firms making profit.

1

u/vishbar Hampshire May 27 '23

You don’t understand, the Reddit Bureau of Economics has spoken. Just make the price lower!

-1

u/cass1o May 27 '23

It's not really simple at all. Companies haven't just woken up one day and decided to be "greedy",

Obviously no. They are always greedy all of the time. It is just they can use this as a great opportunity to gouge.

2

u/Cynical_Classicist May 27 '23

OK... well, you've certainly done your research.

2

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

We must not overlook the fact that while the cost of energy surges, these producers, who've managed to keep their production costs stable, are indeed reaping substantial profits. At the same time, energy suppliers, who operate closer to the consumers, are struggling with razor-thin margins, or worse, going out of business.

In such a scenario, it's not unreasonable to contemplate some form of intervention to level the playing field. For example, one solution could be a revenue tax on energy producers' profits from sales to the UK market, aimed at collecting any windfall resulting from global price hikes. Such funds could be used to subsidise energy bills for consumers and businesses, or to invest in renewable energy infrastructure, which could reduce our future reliance on volatile fossil fuels.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

This wouldn't really work though, we are buying e.g. Oil at $100/barrel. The government could then slap a tax of 20% onto this as it enters the UK market but then you are just forcing up the cost to $120/barrel. The UK government cannot control the entire global energy market, even the US cannot do that.

The answer is to boost production to try force down prices, western companies like Shell and BP have done so, to the absolute max they can. However what we can't stop is i.e. Saudi Arabia's Aramco from then dropping production to try keep prices more favourable to them.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

How about instead of insults and snark you write some substance against me?

If I’m so obviously wrong it should be easy?

2

u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC May 27 '23

Cue the Corbynite raging against people who are making factual statements because the facts don't align with their socialist utopia.

1

u/durand101 Free movement is a human right May 28 '23 edited May 28 '23

All they have to do is tax BP and Shell for their record profits. There's no need to overthink it. Their CEOs were practical begging to be taxed. The reason the Tory government doesn't want to do that is because it would be taking money away from UK pension funds, and their key constituents.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '23

There is more to it than that though, BP and Shell took big hits in Covid and got essentially no support. Why should they now be taxed to hell and back because they've done well? That doesn't seem like a fair system to me.

Also a lot of the posts have focused on taxing their global profit, which is obviously not feasible.

1

u/durand101 Free movement is a human right May 29 '23

They've done well by profiting off a war, not because of anything clever that they themselves have done.

Why is it not feasible? The UK government could easily work with the EU to take their profits. These companies are based in the UK so it is our right to tax them. If they leave, which is their right, they should lose access to the UK market. O&G companies should be wound down anyway, because they themselves have shown that they do not know how to transition away from fossil fuels.

-5

u/Tartan_Samurai May 27 '23

It's way more complicated than this, the suppliers we buy our energy from are barely making a profit, some are losing money

UK See's Energy Supplier Profits Increase to as much as £170 Billion

4

u/amegaproxy May 27 '23

Why have you edited the headline of a paywalled article? It says generators and producers not suppliers in the line that's just visible in the opening, and the headline doesn't mention it either.

6

u/thelazyfool May 27 '23

Wow way to completely miss the point he was making, and editorialise an article to fit the untrue point you made lol

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

You managed to get "price gouging" in there, but honestly, if you're really trying to come across as someone who doesn't understand even the basics of what you're talking about, may I suggest swapping 'companies' for 'corporations'?

1

u/Cynical_Classicist May 28 '23

Sure, corporations price gouge.

16

u/Vritran May 27 '23

Change how electricity prices work.

Producing cheap renewable electricity and forcing everyone to sell it at the same price as expensive electricity generated by gas is what is causing the massive profits.

The markup is huge.

6

u/toastyroasties7 May 27 '23

Why would a renewable energy producer want to sell their electricity (that is identical to the non-renewable energy) for cheaper?

Making returns on renewable energy production lower only disincetivises investment in green energy too.

0

u/Vritran May 27 '23

Except renewables already do sell cheaper to the wholesaler. They will have a rate agreed via contract

The wholesaler marks it up in line with Ofgem rules.

The renewable guys don't see any of the extra money.

1

u/prototype9999 May 27 '23

Well, isn't this quite the spectacle? Energy companies reaping 'war profits' from the sky-high oil and gas prices, while average families scrape together pennies to keep the lights on. This windfall tax the government implemented is nothing more than a half-hearted band-aid attempting to staunch a haemorrhaging wound. It's as if they're trying to quench a forest fire with a watering can.

In all honesty, we need to face the cold, hard truth: laissez-faire capitalism is crumbling when it comes to essential utilities. And this cherry-picked windfall tax is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Perhaps the Labour party should shift gears, stop dilly-dallying, and put forth a policy of price controls.

The elephant in the room is that the soaring energy prices are the primary culprit behind this rampant inflation and the potential collapse of our economy. We are in desperate need of radical measures, not some symbolic gestures of appeasement, hoping that this monumental crisis will magically resolve itself.

5

u/BTC-maxi May 27 '23

In all honesty, we need to face the cold, hard truth: laissez-faire capitalism is crumbling when it comes to essential utilities.

We had a decade of cheap energy and near zero inflation, also during this"laissez-faire capitalism".

Then, a a huge chunk of supply was removed from the market, at the same time as demand shoot ups as countries come out of covid restrictions. A shortage exists.

The causes of the high prices aren't unique to capitalism. No amount of whatever economic utopia you have in your head can change the hard reality of a simple fact: prices rise during a shortage.

1

u/John5247 May 27 '23

In that case as we are very deeply engaged in proxy World War 3 would the oil companies mind paying a bit more tax to pay for all the aid we are giving to Ukraine ? Perhaps it's time to have a national coalition war cabinet, with a minister for war. While we're at it we could have one for the climate crisis?

Can we just have a government that takes things seriously and collects some tax?

1

u/ScrewEU May 27 '23

With heating and leccy bills having almost trebled.. all that money ends up in someone's pockets

-2

u/Wah-Wah43 May 27 '23

What is their policy again? A windfall tax and freezing bills at sky high levels. They like to moan, but they don't really have any solutions. Bunch of awful middle managers.

6

u/Gameplan492 May 27 '23

I quite like politicians who moan on behalf of the people they serve rather than the ones who moan on behalf of themselves and their corporate sponsors.

And a windfall tax is a policy.

-1

u/Wah-Wah43 May 27 '23

Labour moan on behalf of their corporate sponsors. Look at who funds them. They are not on our side

1

u/_rtfq May 27 '23

Might you enlighten us?

(Preferably with a source)

1

u/Wah-Wah43 May 27 '23

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-02/uk-labour-raises-7-2-million-in-party-donations-beating-tories

https://www.ft.com/content/124e1566-e5dc-4e1e-8ca4-082bf272f6e6

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/17/labour-donations-individuals-pass-2m-pro-business-drive-pays/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labours-election-war-chest-boosted-29352960

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/10/labour-mps-defend-taking-donations-from-little-known-company

https://inwhoseinterests.uk/2022/06/08/hedge-fund-labour-why-is-the-party-of-the-nhs-now-receiving-money-from-private-health-investors/comment-page-1/#comments

There are plenty of sources and information online if you care to look.

The advisors to the leaders office have been openly bragging about taking this money from wealthy individuals and corporate donors these last 3 years and signalling they want to 'diversify the Labour funding model' which means, less reliance on trade unions and small donors, more money from wealthy individuals and corporate donors.

Do not be surprised when next to nothing changes if Labour win. They represent the same people the Tories represent now. Labour's NEC recently blocked a Green coalition in Hastings, and now there's a Labour-Reform coalition (Farage's ex party).

For energy, it's a windfall tax and freezing energy bills at sky-high levels. I.e. next to no changes and the status quo continuing.

2

u/_rtfq May 27 '23

Thank you, just to be clear I wasn't questioning, just looking for more info.

I'm under no illusion that things will improve if Labour wins, and that's a seriously depressing place to be imo. I want to believe that whoever I'm voting for has policies to improve the country, quality of life etc. (A bit vague I know).

I can't be bothered for cheap blows (take Starmer going after Suella Braverman for the speeding offense) and think this is a damaging tactic for Labour.

2

u/Wah-Wah43 May 27 '23

No worries, fair enough. Based on some comments I have seen on this sub about Labour, a lot of people are unfortunately unaware of what is coming, and they are in for a nasty surprise.

I expect meagre changes (most Tory fundamental changes of the last decade locked in, too) so that there is just enough to claim they have done something, but the status quo will remain. The Green Investment stuff sounds promising, but it's unclear if it's just another PFI, which was a disaster.

Reeves released a Green Paper yesterday championing 'modern supply side economics'. We already have supply side economics, rebadging it won't change a thing. NHS privatisation is set to continue.

As John Mcternan (former advisor to Blair) said last year. 'Thatcherites can come home to Labour again'

2

u/LauraPhilps7654 May 27 '23

Mf brought receipts...

-2

u/uluvboobs May 27 '23

Who does she think kicks these things off, Shell and BP must be the biggest customers of the Foreign Office.

Halliburton -> Produce drilling equipment and "special services" -> Hire Dick Cheney as CEO -> Send him back to the White House to invade and sanction every oil producing country in the world.

-3

u/DavIantt May 27 '23

(50 % sarcasm)

Strange, I didn't know that Britain was at war. Oh wait...

-4

u/ohh3llo101 May 27 '23

She's not wrong but she'll do fuck and I mean fuck all about it. Maybe make a little noise, a few soundbites and then back to business as usual. Or if she makes a change it'll be slightly worse than before.

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

There's been some amount of shite spoken in this thread, but criticising the shadow government for not doing anything is fucking impressive work.

-4

u/[deleted] May 27 '23

British gas made about £6 profit per domestic energy customer last year. It's not as simple as people are making out.

2

u/Benandhispets May 27 '23

It doesn't seem to be talking about those companies to be fair. It specifies oil and gas extraction companies not the middle man suppliers like Octopus.

-14

u/Sad_Farmer_4997 May 27 '23

Never understood the UK's wider hatred of corporate profits, it's almost taboo. The deal is businesses make more money and pay more tax from a fixed tax rate which fills the coffers, but for some reason we just try and loot their profits when we run out of money to pay for a generous public sector in a country with terrible skills shortages and relying on immigrants to do all the real work. Things just get worse and we get more desperate to tax them more and push them further away.

On the energy front, if the price of something goes up and costs a certain amount to produce, you are going to see more profit. I think these people are ridiculously out of touch with the real world, gone are the days of Blair where we could pretend we were world police. If you want to solve the issue stop treating Russia how we are treating them, that's the only way to deal with this.

5

u/Gameplan492 May 27 '23 edited May 27 '23

You never understood it because it's not a hatred of wider corporate profits, it's a hatred of unbridled greed enabled by the greedy at the expense of the desperate.

45% of all the money in the country is in the pockets of 5% of the people. And that's a number that gets worse every year. That's not a sustainable economic model, unless you believe that the majority of people should be slaves to an elite.

3

u/Manovsteele May 27 '23

There are still big reforms that could have saved us a lot of money during this crisis. The major one is that why is the wholesale price of electricity still tagged to the fuel with the largest contribution (in reality always gas)? It meant that wind farms and nuclear power stations also made huge profits even though their operating costs barely changed.

1

u/TeflonBoy May 27 '23

Wait i thought they changed that?!

-5

u/DavIantt May 27 '23

They long for the "halcyon days" of nationalised industries, but they were dirty, polluting and inefficient.