Those close to the government appear to be realising that UK households have no chance of surviving the coming winter with fuel bills forecast to rise to £4,000 or more a year. But the plan they're looking at is dire. A thread....
According to the FT, Scottish Power has proposed capping household energy bills at about £2,000 a year. Other energy companies apparently agree and Kwasi Kwarteng - expected to be Chancellor soon - is interested.
However, as the FT also notes, under the plan 'energy companies would cover the gap between the cap and the wholesale price of gas and electricity by borrowing from a “deficit fund”, arranged by the government through commercial banks.'
That loan would then be paid off through taxation, or by increasing energy bills for 10 to 15 years, or some mix of the two. So, all we are in fact back to is a borrowing arrangement forcibly imposed on the country to bail out energy companies whose businesses have failed.
And let's be clear about this: these companies have failed businesses. If the product they want to supply can only be delivered at a price that people cannot and will not pay because they will not have the means to do so then these companies are bust.
But note what this scheme does. Its whole intention is to keep the energy companies afloat, with this government-backed loan to be paid off by tax or increased prices over years to come providing the means to ensure that happens.
In other words, this scheme is only indirectly designed to help households. Instead, its whole purpose is to keep the energy companies afloat. It is, to not put too fine a point on it, the most massive bung to a failed privatisation exercise in that case.
The estimated cost - at about £100 billion is right. I estimated the cost at £44 billion a year for at least two years in my plan, entitled 'Surviving 2023', but price forecasts have gone up since then.
The focus is wrong though: setting a price cap of £1,971 does not help families on the lowest incomes who cannot already afford this price. That the focus is on the cap alone shows that this plan is putting its attention in the wrong place.
More worryingly though, as I explain in 'Surviving 2023', helping households is only a relatively small part of the cost of getting through the winter to come.
Businesses, charities, care homes, and services like schools and the NHS all need massive support to survive. There is nothing in this plan to help them or stop the economic crisis their failure will create.
As a result, it's very clear that this plan cannot work: in fact it won't even save these energy companies because they can still go under if their business customers fail through their inability to pay uncapped price increases. They do not seem to understand that.
So, this plan will not save the failed privatised electricity companies, or the economy, or many households, but will give a £100 billion bung to these companies despite that. It's dire as a result.
What should happen? Most of the answers are already in 'Surviving 2023'. And as I make clear there, if these companies are bust - and they are - they need to be told to hand over their businesses now because that is what bankrupt businesses do.
We should not be in the business of saving failed energy companies this winter. We should be in the business of saving people, public services and the economy at large. That is the task of government now.
Given that the energy companies have admitted they can't survive without state support then the only thing to do is tell them they will be nationalised now, without compensation because bust businesses are worthless, and that this is necessary to guarantee continuity of supply.
Doing anything else with public money at this moment makes literally no sense at all, and would be throwing £100 billion of state funding away, with a long-term cost to us all.
But will our government to come act in the public interest and pursue this nationalisation instead of putting in place an arrangement that supports their failed dogma of privatisation and the banks who will make a killing from this? I very much doubt it.
This is a scandal in the making.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Richard Murphy

Richard Murphy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

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

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RichardJMurphy

Aug 25
The FT noted this morning that "Financial markets are betting the Bank of England will more than double interest rates by May next year." That means rates of 4% are being pencilled in. This is another catastrophe in the making...a thread
Bank of England base rates matter. They establish the basis for all other interest rates in the UK - with mortgage rates being part of this - but many other loans also have their rates changed when this one does.
So what would the impact of an increase in Bank of England base rate to 4% be on top of all the other crises that we face? I am just going to look at the resulting mortgage issues for now.
Read 29 tweets
Aug 25
What Emily Maitlis seemed to me to be saying in her Edinburgh lecture was that there are truths that need to be told that can be stated as facts without requiring rebuttal. A short thread to discuss this…..
There is, for example, a phenomenon called climate change. No broadcaster need balance that opinion with the view of someone who denies this: any alternative claim is not credible.
It’s also true that climate change has been advanced by human activity. In that case it is beholden on us, now, to address it if we wish to secure the future for human life on earth. This is fact.
Read 17 tweets
Aug 24
I note that David Wolfson QC, who is also Tory peer Baron Wolfson of Tredegar, and who was until fairly recently a Tory justice minister, has responded to my thread on the threat from right wing layers, published yesterday. Some thoughts….
First, this is David Wolfson’s comment:

I also note Jo Maugham from the Good Law Project has already replied, saying:

Read 26 tweets
Aug 23
I am fed up with Tory attacks on lawyers who defend people against injustice, discrimination, abuse and deportation using the laws parliament has created when they say nothing about those right-wing lawyers who spend their time attacking almost everything of value. A thread…
This cover from The Mail today is typical of the attacks on lawyers. In this case, lawyers wanting enough pay to do the job society asks of them is enough reason to attack them. It’s appalling that day in, day out, being a decent lawyer involves abuse from the state and media.
I find this totally objectionable. Maybe that’s because I am woke. I am aware of injustice. I think the law should prevent it. I am delighted that for so long parliament shared that view and put laws in place to protect people and that there are lawyers who will take these cases.
Read 16 tweets
Aug 21
According to the Guardian ‘GPs could write prescriptions for money off energy bills for the most vulnerable under a plan drawn up by the Treasury’. Let’s just think about that for a moment. A thread….
To provide a caveat, the Treasury has not said Team Truss has adopted this plan as yet, but it’s been put out as an idea for a reason, and it must exist, so what’s wrong with this proposal?
I ask what’s wrong, by the way, because struggle as I might I can find nothing good to say about this idea.
Read 23 tweets
Aug 20
We are continually being told by Tory politicians and the Bank of England that businesses must not give employees pay rises that might match inflation because this would create an inflationary spiral. But what about dividends? Aren’t they the real cause of the problem? A thread.
The data I am using in this thread was researched by me with @AdamLeaver1 and others at Sheffield University Management School and Queen Mary, London, which is available here. productivityinsightsnetwork.co.uk/app/uploads/20…
We researched 182 companies that had continuously been in the FTSE 100 from 2009 to 2019 to provide data for the research. Some of these are amongst the biggest companies you’ve heard of. Others are somewhat smaller. The sample is broadly based.
Read 40 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(