Westminster Politics 2024-2029

For those wondering why offgem agreed to yet more energy price rises.

Remember, the government want growth at all costs. Bigger bills register as growth in the economy.

Yes, they are that simple.
 
Seems like that quarterly cap is nearer the average annual household bill, but feck me it's insanely expensive. Disgraceful Ofgem still exists.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...d-to-rise-to-1-849-a-year-from-april-13316130
British Gas made £300 profit per customer last year.

The energy sector desperately needs reform, something happened around COVID when a bunch of them when bust, and the likes of Octopus and co took on their customers and seemingly under some sort of unwritten agreement that they would bow be a cartel in conjunction with Ofgem and be allowed to gouge to their hearts content.
 
British Gas made £300 profit per customer last year.

The energy sector desperately needs reform, something happened around COVID when a bunch of them when bust, and the likes of Octopus and co took on their customers and seemingly under some sort of unwritten agreement that they would bow be a cartel in conjunction with Ofgem and be allowed to gouge to their hearts content.
The oil price spike during Covid certainly exposed the weakness in the suppliers that relied on the wholesale market (kinda like Northern Rock and mortgage lending back in 2007-08). Ridiculous successive governments have allowed the power companies to profiteer though.

I can see gas prices are high, from a quick google, but would be nice if the government got power companies to at least share some of that pain. You know their profits will be up again next year.
 
It's like Lammy has a checklist of everything he's ever said and won't rest until he's contravened every single one of them. Is there anyone else so committed to hypocrisy?
Yep there’s a level of shamelessness which is unmatched.

Truly a man who believes in nothing.
 
I'm not on twitter, Facebook, insta or anything - so if you think i have any idea what makes a person a Nazi in this day and age you'd be wrong.

Nazi to me, killed millions of children women and men, pulled gold out peoples teeth before sending them too death, lined people up too save bullets, took the fingers of my grandfather (that was the Japanese) but he was fighting Nazi's.

I think using the Nazi word actually undermines the meaning of it, fascist, knob, twat or dickhead yes - but Nazi i just don't get it. I suppose it been getting to me for awhile when (about to go on a tangent here) when you see palestinian protesters calling everyone not holding a palestinian flag a Nazi, i find it very ironic on multiple levels.

I'm not talking the atrocities going on over there, I'm talking about the protesters living in the west who have zero idea what that word actually means to a group or people, or even worse they do but they don't care.
Have you missed the now multiple people close to Trump, including the man heading DOGE have been filmed in public doing Nazi salutes over the past 6 weeks or so? That has inevitably and justifiably resulted in them being called Nazis.
 
Cutting aid to increase defense is such a common sense thing to do in the current climate. I dont really care if it goes against what they previously said, although they clearly shouldnt have made such a pledge to begin with. There are plenty of legitimate things to gripe about when it comes to Starmer's Labour party - this isnt really one of them.
 
British Gas made £300 profit per customer last year.

The energy sector desperately needs reform, something happened around COVID when a bunch of them when bust, and the likes of Octopus and co took on their customers and seemingly under some sort of unwritten agreement that they would bow be a cartel in conjunction with Ofgem and be allowed to gouge to their hearts content.
Would be interesting to have a compariosn with other companies

I suspect Tesco or Asda makes more than that per customer per year fo example
 
Would be interesting to have a compariosn with other companies

I suspect Tesco or Asda makes more than that per customer per year fo example
That’s completely irrelevant?

We know the average yearly cost on the cap is around £1800. That means British Gas are making 15% profit. That’s after they have spent on infrastructure and all other overheads.

That’s absurd when it’s from a basic human necessity. Why are Ofgem allowing that?
 
That’s completely irrelevant?

We know the average yearly cost on the cap is around £1800. That means British Gas are making 15% profit. That’s after they have spent on infrastructure and all other overheads.

That’s absurd when it’s from a basic human necessity. Why are Ofgem allowing that?
Because they absolutely don't have the captive consumers as their priority and are simply a governmental rubber stamp on an effective cartel.
 
Cutting aid to increase defense is such a common sense thing to do in the current climate. I dont really care if it goes against what they previously said, although they clearly shouldnt have made such a pledge to begin with. There are plenty of legitimate things to gripe about when it comes to Starmer's Labour party - this isnt really one of them.

Our water provision is owned by foreign organisations, some of them backed buy state structures.

So is our energy provision.

Anyone who talks about defense of the country, like the last 6 governments, without the first step being reclaiming the stuff we need just to live, isn;t serious about defense at all.
 
Our water provision is owned by foreign organisations, some of them backed buy state structures.

So is our energy provision.

Anyone who talks about defense of the country, like the last 6 governments, without the first step being reclaiming the stuff we need just to live, isn;t serious about defense at all.
Amen.
 
Cutting aid budget to increase beyond the 2% defense threshold.

Remember this. All those complaints about the US or Trump and you're seeing its dog barking along.

Starmer, pound for pound, is probably worse than Trump. Trump lies all the time but he didn't make any secret of his agenda (legislative) before taking office. Starmer has fecked it all off. What an absolute cnut that man is.
 
Our water provision is owned by foreign organisations, some of them backed buy state structures.

So is our energy provision.

Anyone who talks about defense of the country, like the last 6 governments, without the first step being reclaiming the stuff we need just to live, isn;t serious about defense at all.

I dont think the two (renationalisation of energy/water etc sectors) and traditional defence spending are mutually exclusive. Both should certainly be prioritized ahead of international aid.

Either way though, if we get into a war, I would rather we have x amount more jets than the comfort of knowing that foreigners own the water company.
 
Cutting aid budget to increase beyond the 2% defense threshold.

Remember this. All those complaints about the US or Trump and you're seeing its dog barking along.

Starmer, pound for pound, is probably worse than Trump. Trump lies all the time but he didn't make any secret of his agenda (legislative) before taking office. Starmer has fecked it all off. What an absolute cnut that man is.

WOW
 
These imaginary wars the UK is going to get into where it faces any kind of actual threat. From where? The Romans, the Vikings, the Normans, some French wars which lasted about a 1000 years and then the Spanish Armada in-between (the 16th century equivalent of the German raids, I suppose).

It has nuclear weapons and no ground battle is going to be fought against either China or Russia. That's for the birds.

This militarism can feck off. Thankfully the Ukraine war seems to be at its end (hopefully).
 
As Malcolm X said, I prefer the devil which is a devil in speech and practice to the angel which is nothing but a devil.

You can despise both, but one of them is doing exactly what he campaigned on and the other doesn't have one policy (or maybe one?) which is being upheld. Not forget his other false metamorphoses when he ran for leader and then purged the party (projected this kind of stuff onto Corbyn) of any actual dissent.
 
These imaginary wars the UK is going to get into where it faces any kind of actual threat. From where? The Romans, the Vikings, the Normans, some French wars which lasted about a 1000 years and then the Spanish Armada in-between (the 16th century equivalent of the German raids, I suppose).

It has nuclear weapons and no ground battle is going to be fought against either China or Russia. That's for the birds.

This militarism can feck off. Thankfully the Ukraine war seems to be at its end (hopefully).
Yeah but what if the Argies have another go at the Falklands.
 
As Malcolm X said, I prefer the devil which is a devil in speech and practice to the angel which is nothing but a devil.

You can despise both, but one of them is doing exactly what he campaigned on and the other doesn't have one policy (or maybe one?) which is being upheld. Not forget his other false metamorphoses when he ran for leader and then purged the party (projected this kind of stuff onto Corbyn) of any actual dissent.

You should move out here to America then.
 
You should move out here to America then.
You can despise both. Malcolm meant apartheid SA which "preached apartheid and practiced it" noting the hypocrisy of the US where apartheid was practiced but a false liberalism was preached. I make the same distinction: hypocrisy (from Starmer). Trump ran on these things and implemented them (or is doing so) -- Starmer did not. I dislike each but you get the point?
 
That’s completely irrelevant?

We know the average yearly cost on the cap is around £1800. That means British Gas are making 15% profit. That’s after they have spent on infrastructure and all other overheads.

That’s absurd when it’s from a basic human necessity. Why are Ofgem allowing that?
It's not irrelevant, it's a way to see who's screwing you the most
 
has the uk prime minister ever been convicted of a felony, been outwardly racist, sexist, etc etc?

One is clearly worse than the other
Has he ever implemented policies he said was going to implement? I can count one which had to be done (the NHS -- slight increase in expenditure after a decade or more of no real-term increase in funding, just adjusted for inflation by Tories).

The man is a cnut. It was obvious almost immediately after he became Lab leader.
 
It literally tells you where the money is coming from.
However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested the increase in spending on defence will amount to around £6 billion per year, rather than the £13.4 billion cited by the PM.

IFS associate director Ben Zaranko warned that cuts to aid “won’t be enough” if defence spending is to increase beyond 2.5%, but also said Sir Keir had announced a “misleadingly large figure for the ‘extra’ defence spending”.


He said: “An extra 0.2% of GDP is around £6 billion, and this is the size of the cut to the aid budget. Yet he trumpeted a £13 billion increase in defence spending.

“It’s hard to be certain without more detail from the Treasury, but this figure only seems to make sense if one thinks the defence budget would otherwise have been frozen in cash terms.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/starmer-slashes-aid-fund-biggest-125824759.html
.
 
I don't know about that, Iceland might get annoyed over fish again, Norway might fancy having the orkney's and Shetland's back as well
Seriously though -- you're not wrong as it goes, which is why the UK a decade or more ago invested heavily in Cyber -- consider this:

As of the 2023/24 financial year, the United Kingdom's economic and defense expenditure statistics are as follows:

MetricAmount (in £ billion)Percentage of GDP
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)2,540100%
Total Government Expenditure1,10843.6%
Defense Spending53.92.3%
In this context, defense spending constitutes approximately 4.9% of the UK's total government expenditure. None of these figures are 100% (it's actually a higher spend iirc and a slightly higher GDP).

Sources:

These figures highlight the UK's commitment to defense within its overall budget, allocating a significant portion of its resources to maintain and enhance its military capabilities.

2% equates to twice that (roughly, it's actually slightly more) because government expenditure is the key figure not GDP.

The US spend 13% of all its expenditure (and likely more due to many hidden costs -- much more) on its military. France is at about 5%. It's a list of war-torn nations in that top twenty with the US spending about as much as Israel (about 13%). There is are two democracies in that list and the US is one whilst France is the other.

The sheer amount of money which goes in that direction is often played down by people who cite GDP figures but ignore total government expenditure which paints a far more realistic picture.


Here's the other list (percentage of fiscal governmental expenditure which goes to international aid). Nearly all democracies present. The UK is doing what it has done for years and just going the direction its master swings. I'd rather keep company with the list below than the other one (percentage of expenditure which goes to military spending) where the US is also listed (and ridiculously high).

As of 2022, the top countries allocating the highest percentages of their government expenditures to official development assistance (ODA) are:

CountryODA as Percentage of Government Expenditure
Luxembourg1.05%
Norway1.02%
Sweden0.99%
Denmark0.71%
Germany0.80%
United Kingdom0.51%
Netherlands0.59%
France0.70%
Switzerland0.55%
Finland0.47%
Belgium0.45%
Ireland0.31%
Canada0.27%
Australia0.27%
Japan0.30%
New Zealand0.28%
Italy0.22%
Spain0.21%
United States0.22%
Portugal0.16%


Edit: just for the record, the US is so low on that list. Sure it might spend a lot because it has a large GDP but in term that actually matter (percentage of what it is willing to give to overseas development from its overall governmental expenditure, it is very weak). Now it will become basically non-existent. This was the only soft power they had left, btw, which tells you how mental that place has become considering how insanely (>13% of all spending to military) militarized they are.
 
Last edited:
Seriously though -- you're not wrong as it goes, which is why the UK a decade or more ago invested heavily in Cyber -- consider this:

As of the 2023/24 financial year, the United Kingdom's economic and defense expenditure statistics are as follows:

MetricAmount (in £ billion)Percentage of GDP
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)2,540100%
Total Government Expenditure1,10843.6%
Defense Spending53.92.3%
In this context, defense spending constitutes approximately 4.9% of the UK's total government expenditure. None of these figures are 100% (it's actually a higher spend iirc and a slightly higher GDP).

Sources:

These figures highlight the UK's commitment to defense within its overall budget, allocating a significant portion of its resources to maintain and enhance its military capabilities.

2% equates to twice that (roughly, it's actually slightly more) because government expenditure is the key figure not GDP.

The US spend 13% of all its expenditure (and likely more due to many hidden costs -- much more) on its military. France is at about 5%. It's a list of war-torn nations in that top twenty with the US spending about as much as Israel (about 13%). There is are two democracies in that list and the US is one whilst France is the other.

The sheer amount of money which goes in that direction is often played down by people who cite GDP figures but ignore total government expenditure which paints a far more realistic picture.


Here's the other list (percentage of fiscal governmental expenditure which goes to international aid). Nearly all democracies present. The UK is doing what it has done for years and just going the direction its master swings. I'd rather keep company with the list below than the other one (percentage of expenditure which goes to military spending) where the US is also listed (and ridiculously high).

As of 2022, the top countries allocating the highest percentages of their government expenditures to official development assistance (ODA) are:

CountryODA as Percentage of Government Expenditure
Luxembourg1.05%
Norway1.02%
Sweden0.99%
Denmark0.71%
Germany0.80%
United Kingdom0.51%
Netherlands0.59%
France0.70%
Switzerland0.55%
Finland0.47%
Belgium0.45%
Ireland0.31%
Canada0.27%
Australia0.27%
Japan0.30%
New Zealand0.28%
Italy0.22%
Spain0.21%
United States0.22%
Portugal0.16%
Yeah I'm not going to try and decipher all that
 
Yeah I'm not going to try and decipher all that
tl;dr the UK spends more on defense than its % per gdp makes it seem because you have to discount gdp and take its actual budget into account where the figure is always at least twice that which is cited -- no one spends their entire gdp (everything the economy does, along with ppp) in their budget because it doesn't exist to spend.
 
Our water provision is owned by foreign organisations, some of them backed buy state structures.

So is our energy provision.

Anyone who talks about defense of the country, like the last 6 governments, without the first step being reclaiming the stuff we need just to live, isn;t serious about defense at all.
That's my line of thinking too. Start with that stuff.
 
Could you explain the above please, as you seem to, inexplicably based on my post, be thinking I made any kind of point regarding the genocidal actions of Israel? To be clear: I wasn't and I'm not sure if you replied to me in error but there's nothing in my post that enables that inference.
Sorry, just seen this. My error, was meant to be a reply to the other poster talking of nazi references not being appropriate. I'll delete my post.
 
Our water provision is owned by foreign organisations, some of them backed buy state structures.

So is our energy provision.

Anyone who talks about defense of the country, like the last 6 governments, without the first step being reclaiming the stuff we need just to live, isn;t serious about defense at all.

Not sure about how that relates to "defence" but I 100% agree that anything we actually need to be able to live, i.e. water, energy, public transport needs to be owned and operated by the government, meaning us.
All these companies providing a fecking shit service and still making a profit, then having the gall to demand we pay more so they can make more profits is insanity. I'm not clued up at all, but when do some of these contracts run out? I don't imagine we'd have enough money to buy ourselves out of anything anytime soon.
 
Not sure about how that relates to "defence" but I 100% agree that anything we actually need to be able to live, i.e. water, energy, public transport needs to be owned and operated by the government, meaning us.
All these companies providing a fecking shit service and still making a profit, then having the gall to demand we pay more so they can make more profits is insanity. I'm not clued up at all, but when do some of these contracts run out? I don't imagine we'd have enough money to buy ourselves out of anything anytime soon.
The utilites don't have 'contracts' with the Government, public transport does though
 
Not sure about how that relates to "defence" but I 100% agree that anything we actually need to be able to live, i.e. water, energy, public transport needs to be owned and operated by the government, meaning us.
All these companies providing a fecking shit service and still making a profit, then having the gall to demand we pay more so they can make more profits is insanity. I'm not clued up at all, but when do some of these contracts run out? I don't imagine we'd have enough money to buy ourselves out of anything anytime soon.
It matters for security, because the average person can survive for 3 days without water, and the country couldn't survive without energy for more than a few hours.

Disrupting those things is a much greater threat to the safety of people in this country than putin, assad or any enemy of the day.

Yet we let foriegn governments and organizations ran by god knows who have control over them. As we can see with trump, allies can become enemies overnight. The idea we allow others the power to destroy our ability to sustain our own country should be seen for the threat it is.
 
Has he ever implemented policies he said was going to implement? I can count one which had to be done (the NHS -- slight increase in expenditure after a decade or more of no real-term increase in funding, just adjusted for inflation by Tories).

The man is a cnut. It was obvious almost immediately after he became Lab leader.

So yes, he had implemented policies he said he would.

You’re being a tad sensationalist
 
Our water provision is owned by foreign organisations, some of them backed buy state structures.

So is our energy provision.

Anyone who talks about defense of the country, like the last 6 governments, without the first step being reclaiming the stuff we need just to live, isn;t serious about defense at all.
I was against privatization from the beginning but I don't get your point here.

If we go to war with France we won't die of thirst because the French own the water companies. They would be seized like we did Russia's assets. As would our assets be in France.
 
It matters for security, because the average person can survive for 3 days without water, and the country couldn't survive without energy for more than a few hours.

Disrupting those things is a much greater threat to the safety of people in this country than putin, assad or any enemy of the day.

Yet we let foriegn governments and organizations ran by god knows who have control over them. As we can see with trump, allies can become enemies overnight. The idea we allow others the power to destroy our ability to sustain our own country should be seen for the threat it is.
Ok agreed on that but exactly what other countries control all of this stuff for us?
I remember reading EDF were going to build a nuclear power station but presumably runs deeper than that?
 
Ok agreed on that but exactly what other countries control all of this stuff for us?
I remember reading EDF were going to build a nuclear power station but presumably runs deeper than that?
It does, France provides power via cable under the channel. the UK is dependent on foreign ships to deliver gas because the UK doesn't have the means to store much of it, Britain hasn't produced enough food to feed its people since the Napoleanic wars