Rishi means an enlightened person and a Truss is a method of providing support. What is blatantly obvious is that neither of the two candidates fighting to be the next PM comes close to fitting these definitions.
They both exhibit their Thatcherite DNA, for Liz that means banging on about her tax-cutting agenda and for Rishi that refers to his fiscal rectitude. Thatcherism and Reaganism were a product of the 1980’s laissez-faire economics, meaning free market capitalism that opposed any government intervention. We now live in a hugely different world and like the former PM, Thatcherism should also be buried. Let us also remember it was Prime Minister Thatcher that sold off the family silver, which included the energy and water sectors.
Liz’s fixation on cutting taxes has been criticised by Institute for Fiscal Studies as simplistic and counterproductive. Firstly, the mantra that by cutting taxes the economy will grow is overly simplistic and there is no tangible evidence of a linear relationship between income tax cuts and a larger economy. Secondly, tax-cutting is regressive, what is needed is direct support for families who over the coming months will have to choose between heating and eating. Finally, reversing Rishi’s proposal to increase national insurance and corporation tax on top of her £30bn tax-cutting agenda will increase the already £2.3 trillion national debt. This will certainly push up borrowing costs, hurting families right up the income scale and a prelude to a deep recession or even the dreaded stagflation (shrinking economy and rising costs). The Bank of England has only one blunt tool to deal with inflation and that is interest rates. As sure as night follows day, interest rates will continue to rise with some analysts forecasting rates up from 1.75% to 2.75% by Christmas. That will suck demand out of the economy and at the same time increase mortgage and debt repayments for families. For mortgages, this could mean up to £400.00 a month on a £150000 mortgage.
They both bang on about cutting vat, listen, cutting vat helps higher income households more. Do the multi-millionaire, PPE graduates, Sunak and Truss not know, that there is no “fucking” vat on food. So much for their concern for those new Tory voters in” Red Wall” seats. Apologies for using the F word but watching Barbie and Ken, people with no vision for this country, ass kissing a bunch of old and grey right-wing Tories to be anointed Prime Minister, is quite frankly pathetic. We are in the middle of any energy crisis but what we know (that includes the dogs in the street), is that the current crisis is not simply about the cost of energy but more importantly energy security
At this point there are two approaches to the energy and cost of living crisis:
- As the capped price is reset, that simply means going up, supporting families on Universal Credit, poorer pensioners and those with special needs with direct cash rebates is vital. At this point, not Liz’s preferred option.
- Fixing the price at the current cap which is currently £2000.00 per annum for the average family and the state directly pays the energy companies the shortfall between the old capped price and the new capped price. The new capped price which will be adjusted every 3 months could reach £5000 by March 2023. The cost to the taxpayer/ state could be in the region of £70bn. Protecting corporate profits will be hard to swallow. This does not take into consideration any support for small businesses who are also suffering a triple whammy of energy price rises, the difficulty of passing rising costs on to customers and finally the reduced amount available for discretionary spending.
We now know that the majority of the electorate (including conservative voters) would support the nationalisation of both energy and water companies. Keir and the Labour Party need to show some leadership, balls and vision, stop prevaricating and embrace the new mood of the electorate. If Keir cannot lead on this issue, it is okay to follow.
The energy companies in 10 years from 2010 have paid out in dividends and share buyback schemes close to £50bn and that does not include the cost to the taxpayer of the recent energy company bailouts. The water companies have paid dividends of £57bn between 1991 and 2019 (The Guardian) and that does not include the £100’s of millions on share buyback schemes.
The costs of nationalising both energy and water vary on the interest group producing the figures. The CBI says £200bn as you would expect, others suggest figures of below £50bn. Whatever the figure the Labour strap line should be “Its coming home, its coming home the family silver is coming home”. Labour should also commit to massive investment in transitioning to renewables and new nuclear. This should include on and offshore wind, opening the grid to solar, green hydrogen, tidal schemes and a commitment to insulating homes.
You do not need to be a rocket scientist to have worked out that energy security is the route to controlling energy costs, with the additional upside that we will be also contributing to saving the planet. In the short run, money needs to be put directly into the pockets of the most vulnerable in our communities. Finally, this is the time for Keir to step up or step down.
Let us know what you thought in the comments below 👇
Suneil Sharma
1st September 2022
The Gob 
Leave a Reply