Tweet

Richard Murphy

6 Aug, 14 tweets, 2 min read

The Guardian has reported that fuel prices are rising this morning. That deeply annoys me….a thread follows…there are ways to tackle this….

Firstly, the reason for the price increases is supposedly because of market pressures. Actually, as massive profit increases at BP, Shell and other companies shows, that is nothing more than profit-taking.

Second, this is apparently intended to keep small market suppliers afloat - because otherwise they would go bust and the supposed 'market' in domestic energy supply would fail.

Third, the impact will, of course, be deeply regressive: fuel poverty is a fact for those on low incomes.

Fourth, this will inevitably link to flu deaths: they are largely caused by fuel poverty.

Fifth, note this is happening as Universal Credit is cut by £20 a week.

Could you make this up? Only if you are a believer that markets are for the benefits of the companies in them and are not for the benefit of consumers could you make any such scenario up.

What were the right reactions to price increases? First, if companies were going to fail as a result, they should have been allowed to do so. That's what happens in markets.

Second, if there is no domestic energy market (and there is not: it's an abusive charade, exploiting the least well off most) then the pretence should be dropped.

Third, the companies in that market should be nationalised. That's what should happen for utilities where come what may, whoever you but from, there's only one wire and one pipe into your house and no real choice at all.

Fourth, a nationalised energy supplier should supply a clear, simple, tariff that is lowest price to all. The current exploitation of the elderly, those without internet and who stay with a supplier should end for good.

Fifth, that nationalised company should be run on a not for profit, after allowing fro funding reinvestment basis.

Sixth, if there are forced price changes because of market moves that company should be required to work with 0ther government agencies to provide credit to those least well off to protect them from sudden price changes.

Or, seventh, pensioners and those on universal credit should get a fuel adjustment to their payments to allow for such changes instead.

We have a state to protect us. That protection includes the expectation that the state will prevent poverty. The state we have is not doing that. And it is not good enough. It's protecting companies instead.

We need a state that gets priorities right. It's really not hard to do. I have set out the mechanism. Now, why can't we have Opposition parties agree on such policies to ensure that they can deliver the protection that this government will not provide?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @RichardJMurphy

Richard Murphy

@RichardJMurphy

1 Aug

@GNev2

Gary Neville, @GNev2, suggested we need a peaceful revolution yesterday. It’s not the usual call for an ex Manchester United player who is now a football commentator. But was he right to do so? A short thread….

I am not by inclination revolutionary. But we need to change our head of state.

And we need to be rid of the House of Lords.

We need electoral reform - because first past the post is nothing like democracy now.

We need to respect the right of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to choose their own futures.

And we need to revive local decision making, and democracy.

Education needs to be back under state control, and not that of private academies.

Read 12 tweets

Richard Murphy

@RichardJMurphy

25 Jul

According to press reports this morning 'Britain faces ‘decades of financial risk’ as £370bn pandemic bill mounts'. The headlines seem very familiar: they looks like debt paranoia. But is that true? A short thread....

The headlines are pretty universal. The Observer is guilty of the one that I quote. theguardian.com/world/2021/jul…

What the reports are referring to are two publications from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee this morning. Both relate to the way that the government has managed spending during the Covid crisis. committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/…

Read 18 tweets

Richard Murphy

@RichardJMurphy

23 Jul

The government gave some staff in the NHS a pay rise yesterday, and then said that the cost must come out of existing NHS budgets. It refused a pay rise to the police. It’s as if they’re saying there is a shortage of money. There isn’t. A thread’s needed to explain that…..

Once upon a time, before most people in the UK were alive, the value of money was linked to gold, either directly or indirectly via the fixed exchange rate we had with the US dollar. But that ended in 1971. In that year the dollar ceased to be linked to gold.

Since 1971 the result has been that all the money we have in the UK is what is called fiat money. That has nothing to do with an Italian car company. What it actually means is that all our money is just a promise to pay.

Read 54 tweets

Richard Murphy

@RichardJMurphy

20 Jul

The idea that national insurance should pay for the increased cost of social care for the elderly is hideous. It reveals that the government does not know how tax works, how the economy functions, or how tax impacts inequality. A thread……

The Times has reported that the government is planning to increase the national insurance paid by both employers and employees to pay for the UK’s social care crisis. As tax decisions go, this one would be terrible.

It’s true that we have a social care crisis in the UK. Just as we need more healthcare, education, police, justice services, environmental protection and much more, so do we also need more social care.

Read 31 tweets

Richard Murphy

@RichardJMurphy

11 Jul

The list of things that are failing in the UK is growing:
- The NHS
- Education
- The justice system
- Social care
- Defence
- The police
The government’s planned response is to cut spending and make things worse. How and why do they think that will work for us?

The government says that taxes will have to go up to pay for better public services. There is no evidence that this is true. Last year more than £300 billion of government spending was paid for by newly created money, provided by the Bank of England. Why not carry on with that?

Those who object to the government creating money to pay for public services say that’s because it creates inflation. It hasn’t for goods, services and wages. It has for shares and house prices. So why not tax wealth more in that case, and have the services we need as well?

Read 11 tweets

Richard Murphy

@RichardJMurphy

7 Jun

The time for pretence is over: the reality is that the UK is facing another Covid outbreak at least as serious as that earlier this year. This has massive economic consequences. So, a thread on what we need to think about this time.

First, the Treasury has to realise we lockdown to protect the economy. We don’t do it to harm it. We lockdown, provide support and accept the costs because the alternatives are worse.

What’s worse is not just in lives lost, or blighted by long Covid and racked by concern, although they are all bad enough. The alternative is bigger economic cost resulting from health care created chaos.

Read 61 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!