Govt one off giveaways

[oowee]

Given the poor economic management over the last 10 years there are many that need extra support in society. I am all in favour of supporting those in most need but one off lump sums is not the way to do it unless the aim is a further boost to hospitality. 

Also £400 given to everyone as a grant regardless of need.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by oowee

[ditchman]

how is it paid ?

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

Also £400 given to everyone towards everyone as a grant regardless of need.

Ill have yours if you dont want it  

[oowee]

20 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Ill have yours if you dont want it  

 If you have the time to watch this stuff its hilarious. 

 

24 minutes ago, ditchman said:

how is it paid ?

The £650 additional handout to the most in need is given as two payments direct to bank. The £400 comes I think as a lump sum in Oct. 

[London Best]

400 quid!

Put me down for a slab of Bismuth next season.

[simonm]

20 minutes ago, London Best said:

400 quid!

Put me down for a slab of Bismuth next season.

It will be a box by then!

[Poor Shot]

I'm not all that sure of how the whole process of energy supply works in the UK * but it all stinks a bit. Would it not be more effective to reduce the price cap to a level manageable by all consumers and then let the market work itself out? If BG, SSE, EON etc were able to turn a decent profit 21-22 (example - Centrica/BG parent company @ £948 million for 21-22) then why the need for another increase in the cap?

I don't really see how handing the poorest a whole load of one off payments is really going to help in the long term?

I'd much rather support a permanent and long term solution to the problem than a temporary fix of the effects of the problem. 

*It's produced at source by X and then sold to Y at wholesale and then passed onto the consumer Z by Y at wholesale rate + margin simplified. I'm sure it's more complex than that in real world.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Poor Shot

[old man]

2 hours ago, Poor Shot said:

I'm not all that sure of how the whole process of energy supply works in the UK * but it all stinks a bit. Would it not be more effective to reduce the price cap to a level manageable by all consumers and then let the market work itself out? If BG, SSE, EON etc were able to turn a decent profit 21-22 (example - Centrica/BG parent company @ £948 million for 21-22) then why the need for another increase in the cap?

I don't really see how handing the poorest a whole load of one off payments is really going to help in the long term?

I'd much rather support a permanent and long term solution to the problem than a temporary fix of the effects of the problem. 

*It's produced at source by X and then sold to Y at wholesale and then passed onto the consumer Z by Y at wholesale rate + margin simplified. I'm sure it's more complex than that in real world.

I see where you are coming from and maybe I misunderstand the supply system but when ownership of all utilities was sold off how can there be any control? All done under the guise of competition being the best for the consumer?

Just off to lie down as the hilarity of our situation now is bursting my stitches.

[Walker570]

.... I see these fat tattooed needy queuing up at the post office counters and our growers are scrabbling to find someone to pick their produce.

[la bala]

29 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

.... I see these fat tattooed needy queuing up at the post office counters and our growers are scrabbling to find someone to pick their produce.

Nail on head Walker.

[JohnfromUK]

53 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

.... I see these fat tattooed needy queuing up at the post office counters and our growers are scrabbling to find someone to pick their produce.

Why work if you can get paid for doing nothing?  As I have often said on here, benefits should be available (and reasonably generous) for;

• The (genuinely) disabled (mental and physical)
• The (genuinely) ill and injured
• The elderly who have contributed all their lives
• The victims of crime, accident, war widows etc. 
• Those genuinely 'down on luck' and looking for work (i.e. redundant etc.)
• Carers for others
• Those who have been unable to contribute for reasons like long term illness, disability

Benefits should be hard to get and subsistence level (or nil) for;

• Those who choose to live of the hard work of others
• Those who feign illness, disability, etc.
• Those who have 'black economy' earnings from cash deals etc.
• Those who live primarily from crime
• Those who have never contributed - but are fit and able to do so

I appreciate it is hard to sort out the wood from the trees here and the lists are far from exhaustive but it gives some idea of how I think quite a lot of people feel.

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, Walker570 said:

.... I see these fat tattooed needy queuing up at the post office counters and our growers are scrabbling to find someone to pick their produce.

simple solution next time march up and tell them they are fat tattooed layabouts who should be picking crops 

[Poor Shot]

1 hour ago, old man said:

I see where you are coming from and maybe I misunderstand the supply system but when ownership of all utilities was sold off how can there be any control? All done under the guise of competition being the best for the consumer?

Just off to lie down as the hilarity of our situation now is bursting my stitches.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Power stations and gas production facilities which are owned by companies and operated by or under the direction of national grid to produce enough power and gas meet demand.

This power is then sold to us via the 'energy companies' who skim a little (lot) off the top of the pence per KWH or M3 of gas.

I don't really see what the part of the energy companies is in this?

Can we not buy directly from National Grid at a cost suitable for everyone? I'd rather take a little hit for the inefficiencies brought by a government controlled utility rather than massively over inflated costs which allow companies like British gas to make hundreds of millions of £'s of profit each year.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Poor Shot

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, Poor Shot said:

That's kind of what I was getting at. Power stations and gas production facilities which are owned by companies and operated by or under the direction of national grid to produce enough power and gas meet demand.

This power is then sold to us via the 'energy companies' who skim a little (lot) off the top of the pence per KWH or M3 of gas.

I don't really see what the part of the energy companies is in this?

Can we not buy directly from National Grid at a cost suitable for everyone? I'd rather take a little hit for the inefficiencies brought by a government controlled utility rather than massively over inflated costs which allow companies like British gas to make hundreds of millions of £'s of profit each year.

 

What's missing is the electricity generation, energy self sufficiency and international market parts of the equation.

 

Traditionally prices in the electric market were low as we had a surplus of electricity of some 14% capacity on average, but with the closure of the coal plants and replacement with gas and renewables, this is now down to 2% on average, resulting in spikes up and down as buyers scramble for supplies when demand exceeds supply.

 

On top of this the gas price sets the electricity price as it produces 60% of electricity and the UK now imports 60% of its gas (mainly from Norway) and with the gas now in high demand (due to Russian sanctions) highest price gets the remaining gas as importing it from the middle East is expensive and also in demand.

Gas on the international market the last few days has been averaging 142 a therm (48.50\MW), burned in a CCGT at 55% efficient gives a cost of £88 but was recently 220p a therm burned  of £136\MW

Wind produces electricity for £50\MW, solar £55, Coal £60, Legacy Nuclear £65 to £70 and gas currently £88, Hinkley will be about £100.

None of the public facing 'energy suppliers make a reliable profit due to competition, the profit is made by the generators, before adding green charges, carbon costs, transmission charges when there is a shortage of supply those generation profits increase quickly, conversely with a healthy surplus the lower your elec generation cost the more money you make and higher cost generators lose money.

National Grid, would be in the same trap, as long as we import energy to survive we are at the mercy of the market and the international auction market.

 

 

 

[Weihrauch17]

£650 to anyone on benefits, really.  How much will be spent on the cost of living, no way should be handing over cash.

[Old farrier]

It’s total discrimination 

the way it’s distributed why should a oap who’s paid in or a disability claiming ex servicemen who has given for the country get less than a person on befits 

why should there be such disparity between groups of people 

[JohnfromUK]

3 hours ago, Old farrier said:

It’s total discrimination 

the way it’s distributed why should a oap who’s paid in or a disability claiming ex servicemen who has given for the country get less than a person on befits 

why should there be such disparity between groups of people 

Because we have (and have had for a long time) a system that penalises the prudent saver, making him/her use his savings before helping, but favours the spender who has spent all he/she has had ......... even if the spending has been unwise/reckless.

IF someone has savings - the Gov't will penalise you for it.  However, some of us (and I am one) were brought up to be cautious and "put a bit aside for a rainy day" as the saying went.  The state will do it's best to grab that.

We have also traditionally ignored 'giving service' when it comes to financial support. 

[Vince Green]

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Why work if you can get paid for doing nothing?  As I have often said on here, benefits should be available (and reasonably generous) for;

• The (genuinely) disabled (mental and physical)
• The (genuinely) ill and injured
• The elderly who have contributed all their lives
• The victims of crime, accident, war widows etc. 
• Those genuinely 'down on luck' and looking for work (i.e. redundant etc.)
• Carers for others
• Those who have been unable to contribute for reasons like long term illness, disability

Benefits should be hard to get and subsistence level (or nil) for;

• Those who choose to live of the hard work of others
• Those who feign illness, disability, etc.
• Those who have 'black economy' earnings from cash deals etc.
• Those who live primarily from crime
• Those who have never contributed - but are fit and able to do so

I appreciate it is hard to sort out the wood from the trees here and the lists are far from exhaustive but it gives some idea of how I think quite a lot of people feel.

The problem lies in sorting out the real cases. Plus we have no incentive for the "lazy" civil service to query applications. If they get a pile on their desk and rubber stamp the whole lot they are done in an hour and can go back to their crossword or sake an extended lunch.

If they have to start writing letter and querying things then it starts to look like lots of work.

My cousin, now retired, worked for the (then) DHSS in Liverpool the whole of her working life. An interesting job, but they were not allowed to call anyone a liar even if they clearly were. So when people walked in wearing paint splattered overalls to sign on every week nothing was said. 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

The problem lies in sorting out the real cases. Plus we have no incentive for the "lazy" civil service to query applications. If they get a pile on their desk and rubber stamp the whole lot they are done in an hour and can go back to their crossword or sake an extended lunch.

If they have to start writing letter and querying things then it starts to look like lots of work.

My cousin, now retired, worked for the (then) DHSS in Liverpool the whole of her working life. An interesting job, but they were not allowed to call anyone a liar even if they clearly were. So when people walked in wearing paint splattered overalls to sign on every week nothing was said. 

Entirely agree - but I do think it is a problem that has to be tackled. 

There is a culture now in some parts of society of "why work if you can be just as well off without working".  Personally (I'm retired now) for the vast majority of my working life, I enjoyed work, but I think I was lucky in working in some very well run small British businesses with some great people for most of my life.  The only part I didn't really enjoy was working for a major multi national (USA owned) employer. 

[Old farrier]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Because we have (and have had for a long time) a system that penalises the prudent saver, making him/her use his savings before helping, but favours the spender who has spent all he/she has had ......... even if the spending has been unwise/reckless.

IF someone has savings - the Gov't will penalise you for it.  However, some of us (and I am one) were brought up to be cautious and "put a bit aside for a rainy day" as the saying went.  The state will do it's best to grab that.

We have also traditionally ignored 'giving service' when it comes to financial support. 

Glad I’m not the only one that thinks it’s the wrong path for the government to follow 

[Vince Green]

42 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

There is a culture now in some parts of society of "why work if you can be just as well off without working". . 

Effectively, millions of families are genuinely better off not working than taking a rubbish job on a zero hours contract with rubbish pay, rubbish conditions and no long term security.

We have to see it both ways, the availability of a pool of cheap labour from Eastern Europe allowed the job market to indulge in a race to the bottom 

now we pay the price.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Vince Green

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Effectively, millions of families are genuinely better off not working than taking a rubbish job on a zero hours contract with rubbish pay, rubbish conditions and no long term security.

We have to see it both ways, the availability of a pool of cheap labour from Eastern Europe allowed the job market to indulge in a race to the bottom 

now we pay the price.

 Shockingly, some see all that as a good thing. Pouring cheap imported labour into the workforce, was only ever going to benefit business, not the workers, and has a whole host of knock on effects.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Newbie to this

[JohnfromUK]

40 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Effectively, millions of families are genuinely better off not working than taking a rubbish job on a zero hours contract with rubbish pay, rubbish conditions and no long term security.

My understanding (and I admit to not having researched this) was that Universal Credit should have ensured that you are never worse off by adding to your income from work.  My understanding was that you 'lose' 55p of Universal Credit for every £1 earned in work - and are thus 'better off' by working.   Data from here;  https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/how-your-earnings-affect-your-payments

It is a complicated system, and one with which I am (thankfully) not familiar, so there may be cases where things are different.

[London Best]

12 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

£650 to anyone on benefits, really.  How much will be spent on the cost of living, no way should be handing over cash.

ALL benefits should be paid in bread and soup, not cash to buy beer/fags/tattoos.

[clangerman]

this is nothing but a con job money to come from what is basically a windfall tax handed out only to be given back to the same greed driven energy companies it came from to start with obviously the gov thinks we are a bunch of blind fools